|
|
VIRGINIA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
COMMONWEALTH
OF VIRGINIA |
AO-04-20
October
7, 2020
David
Konick
Chairman, Rappahannock County Planning Commission
Via Email
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 electronic mail messages from June
2020.
Dear
Mr. Konick:
You have asked about the requirements under the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for a member of
a public body to participate in a public meeting by
electronic communication means either due to a personal
matter or due to a medical condition or disability
that prevents physical attendance in light of the
COVID-19 pandemic state of emergency. As background
information, you related that all in-person meetings
were stopped in mid-March 2020 due to the COVID-19
state of emergency but in-person meetings have since
resumed following the provisions of a local emergency
ordinance and the Governor's Executive Orders regarding
the state of emergency. In requesting this opinion,
you stated that:
a
number of the Commissioners have opted to participate
electronically under a claim that they are in the
age group that is more susceptible to COVID-19,
as a consequence of which they do not want to attend
a public meeting of the Commission and wish to participate
electronically. None of them have stated they actually
are afflicted with COVID-19, but only that they
do not wish to attend because of a concern they
might risk contracting it by attending in person.
You then posed the following two questions:
(1) Are the members who want to participate electronically
in any Planning Commission meeting required to specify
in their request whether they are basing the request
on subsection (a) or subsection (b) of Code §
2.2-3708.2(A)(1), and is their failure so to do
a basis for denying the request?
(2) Does a member's "fear" or "concern"
(regardless of whether reasonable or not) that such
member might risk contracting COVID-19 qualify as
"a temporary or permanent disability or other
medical condition that prevents the member's physical
attendance" as defined in Code § 2.2-3708.2(A)(1)(a),
or is it merely a "personal matter" as
set forth in Code § 2.2-3708.2(A)(1)(b) where,
as here, the member does not actually have the disability
or other medical condition?
You further expressed your opinion that the distinction
is important because electronic participation of a
member due to the "personal matter" exception
of subdivision A 1 b of § 2.2-3708.2 of the Code
of Virginia is limited to two meetings per calendar
year. You also raised a policy question by observing
that subsection B of § 2.2-3700 states that "[a]ny
exemption from public access to records or meetings
shall be narrowly construed." You noted that
§ 2.2-3708.2 is itself an exemption to the general
rule that all members be physically present for public
meetings and opined that, following the narrow construction
rule, subdivision A 1 a of § 2.2-3708.2 (the
provision allowing remote participation due to a disability
or medical condition) could not "apply unless
the member actually was afflicted with the disease,
and that such affliction actually prevents their physical
attendance. Otherwise, it would appear that this is
merely 'a personal matter' and the two meetings per
year rule would apply."
Addressing the policy question first, subsection B
of § 2.2-3700 states that "[t]he provisions
of this chapter shall be liberally construed to promote
an increased awareness by all persons of governmental
activities and afford every opportunity to citizens
to witness the operations of government. Any exemption
from public access to records or meetings shall be
narrowly construed and no record shall be withheld
or meeting closed to the public unless specifically
made exempt pursuant to this chapter or other specific
provision of law." Subsections A and B of §
2.2-3707 establish the general rules that meetings
must be open to the public and shall not be held using
electronic communication means, but both subsections
allow for limited exceptions:
A. All meetings of public bodies shall be open,
except as provided in §§ 2.2-3707.01 and
2.2-3711.
B. No meeting shall be conducted through telephonic,
video, electronic or other electronic communication
means where the members are not physically assembled
to discuss or transact public business, except as
provided in § 2.2-3708.2 or as may be specifically
provided in Title 54.1 for the summary suspension
of professional licenses.
An
"open meeting" or "public meeting"
is defined in § 2.2-3701 as "a meeting at
which the public may be present." A "closed
meeting" is defined in the same section as "a
meeting from which the public is excluded." In
the most recent opinion from this office, we cited
rules of statutory interpretation as stated by the
Supreme Court of Virginia: "[i]n construing statutory
language, we are bound by the plain meaning of clear
and unambiguous language."1 In expressing the
same concept, the Court has previously stated:
While
in the construction of statutes the constant endeavor
of the courts is to ascertain and give effect to
the intention of the legislature, that intention
must be gathered from the words used, unless a literal
construction would involve a manifest absurdity.
Where the legislature has used words of a plain
and definite import the courts cannot put upon them
a construction which amounts to holding the legislature
did not mean what it has actually expressed.2
Additionally,
the Court has stated that "when ... a statute
contains no express definition of a term, the general
rule of statutory construction is to infer the legislature's
intent from the ... language used. When the legislature
leaves a term undefined, courts must give [the term]
its ordinary meaning, [taking into account] the context
in which it is used."3
In
discussing FOIA's policy in the context of electronic
meetings and advocating for a narrow construction
of the electronic meetings provisions, you referred
to a recent opinion of the Attorney General concerning
the conduct of meetings by electronic means in response
to the COVID-19 state of emergency declared by the
Governor.4 That opinion stated that "[FOIA] creates
a strong presumption that meetings of 'public bodies'
are open to the public and conducted in person."5
It also quoted FOIA's policy "to promote an increased
awareness by all persons of governmental activities
and afford every opportunity to citizens to witness
the operations of government" and stated that
"a public body may not conduct a meeting through
'electronic communication means' unless doing so is
authorized by either: (a) Code§ 2.2-3708.2; or
(b) another law that takes precedence over VFOIA in
particular circumstances."6 You posited that because
the provisions for electronic meetings in § 2.2-3708.2
are exceptions to the usual rule requiring meetings
to be held in person, the meetings provisions allowing
members to participate electronically must be construed
narrowly as exemptions from public access. However,
while the cited opinion from the Attorney General
applies the liberal construction rule of FOIA as quoted
previously, it does not appear to apply the narrow
construction rule for exemptions in its interpretation
of subdivision A 3 of § 2.2-3708.2 (addressing
the procedural requirements for holding electronic
meetings without a quorum in response to a state of
emergency declared by the Governor). Note that, as
quoted previously, the open meeting rule established
by subsection A of § 2.2-3707 refers to the exceptions
in §§ 2.2-3707.01 (concerning certain meetings
of the General Assembly) and 2.2-3711 (which sets
forth the bulk of FOIA's closed meeting exemptions).
By contrast, the rule against electronic meetings
is in subsection B of § 2.2-3707 and its exceptions
are found in § 2.2-3708.2. Consider also that
both the personal matters and the disability or medical
condition provisions for electronic participation
are also subject to the requirements of subsection
C of § 2.2-3708.2:
C. Participation by a member of a public body in
a meeting through electronic communication means
pursuant to subdivisions A 1 and 2 and subsection
B shall be authorized only if the following conditions
are met:
1. The public body has adopted a written policy
allowing for and governing participation of its
members by electronic communication means, including
an approval process for such participation, subject
to the express limitations imposed by this section.
Once adopted, the policy shall be applied strictly
and uniformly, without exception, to the entire
membership and without regard to the identity of
the member requesting remote participation or the
matters that will be considered or voted on at the
meeting;
2. A quorum of the public body is physically assembled
at one primary or central meeting location; and
3. The public body makes arrangements for the voice
of the remote participant to be heard by all persons
at the primary or central meeting location.
Applying subdivisions C 2 and 3 as quoted previously,
any meeting of a public body where a member participates
electronically due to a personal matter or a disability
or medical condition must have a quorum "physically
assembled at one primary or central meeting location"
and the remotely participating member's voice must
be able "to be heard by all persons at the primary
or central meeting location." In other words,
under these provisions, there still has to be a public
meeting location where the public has in-person access
to a quorum (or more) of the members physically assembled
and access to hear the remote participant's voice
(and presumably, with the appropriate audio/visual
technology, the public could see the remote participant
as well). Reading these provisions together makes
clear that the electronic meetings provisions in §
2.2-3708.2 are alternative procedures that allow a
member to participate in certain public meetings by
electronic means, but they do not exempt such meetings
from public access. This concept is reinforced by
the opinion of the Attorney General you mentioned,
as it referred to the electronic meetings provisions
as "alternative methods to conduct the operation
of government," rather than exemptions to open
meetings requirements.7 By contrast, compare the closed
meetings exemptions in subsection A of § 2.2-3711,
which allow meetings held to discuss certain matters
to be closed to the public entirely, which by definition
means that the public is excluded from such meetings.
Electronic meetings provisions allow public meetings
to be conducted differently by setting out exceptions
to the usual requirement for in-person participation,
but they are still public meetings because there are
provisions for the public to be present. In order
to exclude the public from an electronic meeting,
a public body would still have to cite a closed meeting
exemption, just as it would for a meeting conducted
in person. The narrow construction rule is that "[a]ny
exemption from public access to records or meetings
shall be narrowly construed." Because the electronic
meetings provisions in § 2.2-3708.2 are alternative
procedures for the conduct of meetings, not exemptions
that allow meetings to be closed to the public, we
do not have to apply a narrow construction to them.
However, the electronic meetings procedures must still
be "liberally construed to promote an increased
awareness by all persons of governmental activities
and afford every opportunity to citizens to witness
the operations of government."
Turning to your first enumerated question, you asked
whether a member who wishes to participate remotely
must specify whether he or she is calling in due to
a personal matter or instead using the provision for
disabilities or medical conditions. You pointed out
that the distinction is important because the provisions
for personal matters under subdivision A 1 b of §
2.2-3708.2 may only be used by each member two times
per calendar year. The language of subdivision A 1
of § 2.2-3708.2 requires that:
on
or before the day of a meeting, a member of the
public body holding the meeting [must notify] the
chair of the public body that:
a. Such member is unable to attend the meeting due
to a temporary or permanent disability or other
medical condition that prevents the member's physical
attendance; or
b.
Such member is unable to attend the meeting due
to a personal matter and identifies with specificity
the nature of the personal matter. Participation
by a member pursuant to this subdivision is limited
each calendar year to two meetings.
While my research did not reveal any prior court cases
or advisory opinions interpreting these provisions,
it seems apparent from a plain reading of the quoted
language that a member calling in under subdivision
A 1 of § 2.2-3708.2 must notify the chair on
or before the day of the meeting that he or she is
calling in due to a disability or medical condition
(as provided by subdivision A 1 a) or due to a personal
matter (as provided by subdivision A 1 b). As you
pointed out, it is important to know whether a member
is calling in due to a personal matter in order to
keep track of how many times per year the member has
used that provision in order to avoid violations of
that limitation. Additionally, note that subdivision
A 2 of § 2.2-3708.2 further requires that if
a member participates remotely due to a disability
or medical condition, "the public body shall
also include in its minutes the fact that the member
participated through electronic communication means
due to a temporary or permanent disability or other
medical condition that prevented the member's physical
attendance." By contrast, if a member participates
remotely due to a personal matter, "the public
body shall also include in its minutes the specific
nature of the personal matter cited by the member."
These differing requirements further demonstrate that
a member participating remotely must specify whether
such participation is due to a personal matter or
due to a disability or medical condition because,
without that information, the minutes would be deficient.
Requiring the member to identify the reason as a personal
matter or as a disability or medical condition also
serves the purpose of FOIA by better informing the
public why a member is not participating in person.
Therefore, this question is answered in the affirmative,
that a member participating remotely under subdivision
A 1 of § 2.2-3708.2 must specify whether such
participation is due to a personal matter (subdivision
A 1 b) or instead due to a disability or medical condition
(subdivision A 1 a).
However, it is also important to note that the level
of specificity required under FOIA differs depending
on the reason for the remote participation. A member
participating remotely due to a disability or medical
condition need only state that fact to the chair of
the public body and include that fact in the minutes,
without necessarily specifying the nature of the disability
or medical condition. On the other hand, a member
participating remotely due to a personal matter must
identify the nature of the personal matter "with
specificity" to the chair and include "the
specific nature of the personal matter" in the
meeting minutes. The relative lack of required specificity
when identifying a disability or medical condition
as the reason for remote participation, as compared
to the requirement for specificity in identifying
a personal matter, makes sense as a general statutory
theme allowing individuals privacy in their personal
health information. That theme is demonstrated by
the FOIA exemption for health records at subdivision
1 of § 2.2-3705.5 that cross-references the health
records privacy law at § 32.1-127.1:03, the closed
meetings exemption for the discussion or consideration
of such records at subdivision A 16 of § 2.2-3711,
and various other laws that deal with health records
in the Code of Virginia, as well as federal laws such
as the Health Information Portability and Accountability
Act of 1996 (HIPAA).8
Turning
to your second enumerated question, you asked whether
a member's "fear" or "concern"
that such member might risk contracting COVID-19 qualifies
as "a temporary or permanent disability or other
medical condition that prevents the member's physical
attendance" or is instead a "personal matter"
when the member does not actually have COVID-19. FOIA
does not define what is "a temporary or permanent
disability or other medical condition that prevents
the member's physical attendance." Following
the rules of statutory construction, we turn to the
ordinary usage of these terms in the absence of a
statutory definition.
Dictionary.com
provides six definitions of "disability,"
the first four of which are most relevant in this
instance:
1 lack of adequate power, strength, or physical
or mental ability; incapacity.
2 a physical or mental handicap, especially one
that hinders or prevents a person from performing
tasks of daily living, carrying out work or household
responsibilities, or engaging in leisure and social
activities.
3 anything that disables or puts one at a disadvantage:
His mere six-foot height will be a disability
in professional basketball.
4 the state or condition of being disabled.
Another relevant definition of "disability"
from the Merriam-Webster dictionary online is "a
physical, mental, cognitive, or developmental condition
that impairs, interferes with, or limits a person's
ability to engage in certain tasks or actions or participate
in typical daily activities and interactions."9
The
same sources did not provide definitions of the phrase
"medical condition," but it has been defined
in an online medical dictionary as follows:
A disease, illness or injury; any physiologic, mental
or psychological condition or disorder (e.g., orthopaedic;
visual, speech or hearing impairments; cerebral
palsy; epilepsy; muscular dystrophy; multiple sclerosis;
cancer; coronary artery disease; diabetes; mental
retardation; emotional or mental illness; specific
learning disabilities; HIV disease; TB; drug addiction;
alcoholism). A biological or psychological state
which is within the range of normal human variation
is not a medical condition.
Medical condition is a phrase used in documents
for physicians applying to licensing agencies (e.g.,
state medical boards, malpractice insurance carriers,
third-party payers, etc.), which is used to determine
a physician's physical "suitability" to
practise medicine.10
Two
other definitions of "medical condition"
are "a disease, illness, injury, genetic or congenital
defect, pregnancy, or a biological or psychological
condition that lies outside the range of normal, age-appropriate
human variation" and "the state of a patient's
physical or mental health, including the patient's
illness, injury, or disease."11 The word "prevent"
in ordinary usage means "to keep from occurring;
avert; hinder" or "to hinder or stop from
doing something."12 Alternative definitions include
"to keep from happening or existing" and
"to hold or keep back: HINDER, STOP —often used
with from."13
Reading
these definitions in context, the phrase "temporary
or permanent disability or other medical condition
that prevents the member's physical attendance"
would mean any number of illnesses, injuries, diseases,
disorders, or other states of physical or mental health
that fall outside the normal range of human variation
that hinder or stop a member of a public body from
attending a meeting in person. You have asked whether
the fear or concern of contracting COVID-19 qualifies
as such a disability or medical condition or whether
it is instead a personal matter, particularly for
a member of a public body who does not actually have
COVID-19. You advocated for a narrow interpretation
of the provision allowing remote participation due
to a disability or medical condition and assert that,
given such an interpretation, the provision should
not be used "unless the member actually was afflicted
with the disease, and that such affliction actually
prevents their physical attendance." Under normal
circumstances, a generalized fear or concern about
catching an illness with no specific basis in fact
would not qualify as a "temporary or permanent
disability or other medical condition that prevents
the member's physical attendance." However, as
described previously, the narrow construction rule
does not apply here because the electronic meetings
provisions are alternative procedural rules for the
conduct of public meetings, not exemptions from public
access. Additionally, if taken to its logical extreme,
requiring that a member "actually" be prevented
from physically attending a meeting would imply that
the member is bedridden, restrained, or otherwise
rendered physically incapacitated and utterly unable
to travel, which is an unreasonable interpretation
of this provision considering the breadth of illnesses,
injuries, conditions, etc. that are reflected in the
definitions quoted previously. Consider if a member
had a contagious illness (whether a common cold, COVID-19,
or what have you) diagnosed the same day as the meeting,
was advised by his or her doctor to stay home, was
prescribed medication, and was told that he or she
would remain contagious for a number of days thereafter.
It would be reasonable to allow a member to participate
remotely under such circumstances in order to avoid
the spread of contagion and to allow the member better
rest and recovery, regardless of whether the member
was "actually" prevented from physically
attending due to the illness. To say otherwise would
be to substitute the public body's judgment on matters
of health in place of the member's own judgment and,
if the member did see a doctor as posited, in place
of the medical professional's judgment as well. Additionally,
keep in mind that the whole point of allowing remote
participation due to a disability or medical condition
is to allow members to participate when they otherwise
would miss the meeting due to the disability or medical
condition.14 Disallowing members to participate in a
meeting based on the type or severity of a disability
or medical condition does not serve the public purpose
of allowing the public to witness the operation of
government; it merely prevents certain members of
public bodies from participating when they otherwise
might do so by electronic means rather than in person.
Finally,
consider the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic and the
current state of emergency, as stated by the Attorney
General:
On
March 12, 2020, the Governor "declare[d] that
a state of emergency exists in the Commonwealth
of Virginia to continue to prepare and coordinate
our response to the potential spread of COVID-19,
a communicable disease of public health threat"
and specifically cited the Governor's authority
under Code § 44-146.17. It is likewise clear
that "the catastrophic nature of the declared
emergency makes it impracticable or unsafe to assemble
a quorum in a single location," because avoidance
of physical assembly whenever possible is critical
to ongoing efforts to contain and manage a virus
that is spread through close contact between people.15
The
Virginia Department of Health (VDH) has a great deal
of information about COVID-19 on its website, including
daily updates on the number of cases reported, the
number of deaths that have occurred due to COVID-19,
and "Prevention Tips" that begin with the
following statement as a header in large font: "Do
Your Part to Help Stop the Spread of COVID-19 by Staying
at Home As Much As Possible."16 The tips go on
to recommend several other measures, including maintaining
a social distance of at least six feet and wearing
masks, but it also includes the following two bullet
points:
-
We are all safer at home, especially those who are
at higher risk of severe illness. As stay at home
orders are lifted and businesses are reopening,
it is important that we keep ourselves safe as we
go back out to start up some of our normal activities.
While we can't remove all risk of getting COVID-19,
there are things we can do to lessen that risk.
-
Remember that if you have COVID-19, have any signs
or symptoms, or have been in close contact with
someone who has COVID-19, you should stay home and
away from other people to prevent spreading illness
to others.17
Note
that the VDH tips link to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) website, including a
list of persons at increased risk for severe illness.18
That list of increased risks first includes older
people and people with medical conditions, then includes
other factors that may heighten the risk of contracting
a severe illness: racial and ethnic minorities, pregnancy
and breastfeeding, people with disabilities, developmental
and behavioral disorders, drug use and substance use
disorders, and people living in rural communities,
among other factors.19 Further, I would note that the
Governor's Executive Order 51 declaring the state
of emergency due to COVID-19 was originally issued
March 12, 2020, and was subsequently amended on May
26, 2020, to declare a continuing state of emergency
and to "remain in full force and effect
until amended or rescinded by further executive order."
[Emphasis in original.] To date, Virginia remains
in a state of emergency. However, I would also note
that the mandatory stay at home order, Executive Order
55, was issued March 30, 2020, and effective until
June 10, 2020, and was not amended to continue as
were Executive Order 51 and other executive orders
related to the COVID-19 state of emergency.
Given all of these factors as background, a "fear"
or "concern" that one might contract COVID-19
appears to be a reasonable one with a real basis in
fact. Given that the first recommendation from VDH
and CDC for prevention of the disease appears to be
"stay at home," it also appears to be a
reasonable argument that a concern over contracting
COVID-19 may act to prevent a member of a public body
from physically attending a meeting if he or she chooses
to follow the VDH and CDC recommendations. If the
member has some particular reason for concern, such
as being in one of the heightened risk groups identified
by CDC, membership in that risk group may also be
seen as a condition that prevents physical attendance.
Therefore, under the particular and unique factors
involved in the COVID-19 state of emergency, a public
body may choose to allow a member to participate by
electronic communication means as a disability or
medical condition that prevents the member's physical
attendance.
However, as a practical matter, FOIA largely leaves
it up to each public body to decide what limits it
wants to place on participation under both the personal
matters and the disability or medical condition provisions
by requiring each public body to set its own policy
on such participation under subdivision C 1 of §
2.2-3708.2 as quoted previously. The FOIA Council's
own policy on electronic participation is to allow
it unless it would violate FOIA or the policy itself,
and if there is a challenge to a member's participation,
to put the matter to a vote.20As I recall, the one
time a member of the FOIA Council participated electronically
due to a disability or medical condition, he was allowed
to participate and no one even asked what was the
disability or medical condition. Anecdotally, this
appears to be the same for most public bodies; FOIA
does not require disclosure of the nature of a disability
or medical condition and most public bodies do not
ask, so as a result, questions such as you have posed
here simply do not arise. That said, other public
bodies are free to adopt whatever policies they wish,
including the option of not allowing any electronic
participation due to a personal matter or due to a
disability or medical condition at all, so long as
such a policy otherwise complies with subsection C
of § 2.2-3708.2. As a practical matter, anecdotally
I have been told about some public bodies that have
adopted policies to expressly allow members to participate
due to concerns over COVID-19 and others that disallow
all such participation. Such policies would be allowed
so long as they are "applied strictly and uniformly,
without exception, to the entire membership and without
regard to the identity of the member requesting remote
participation or the matters that will be considered
or voted on at the meeting" as required by subsection
C of § 2.2-3708.2. Therefore, ultimately, it
is up to each public body to decide, first, whether
it will even seek specific information as to the nature
of a disability or medical condition from its members
when they wish to use this provision, as FOIA does
not require such disclosure, and second, whether the
public body will adopt a policy that attempts to restrict
participation based on the specific information provided.
Thank
you for contacting this office. We hope that this
opinion is of assistance.
Sincerely,
Alan
Gernhardt
Executive Director
1Freedom
of Information Advisory Opinion 03 (2020) (quoting
Cole v. Smyth Co. Bd. of Supervisors, (Va. Record
No. 171205, decided May 28, 2020, available at 2020
Va. LEXIS 56) (citation omitted)).
2Transparent GMU v. George Mason University,
298 Va. 222, 240-241, 835 S.E.2d 544, 553 (Va. 2019)
(citation omitted).r."
3American Tradition Institute v. Rector
and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 287
Va. 330, 341, 756 S.E.2d 435, 441 (Va. 2014).
4Op. Atty. Gen. Va. No. 20-011 (available
at https://www.oag.state.va.us/files/Opinions/2020/Sullivan-Opinion-Request.pdf)
(opinion interpreting subdivision A 3 of § 2.2-3708.2
in light of the COVID-19 state of emergency).
5Id.
6Id.
7n.1, supra.
8P.L. 104–191. While this office is limited
to FOIA matters, note that the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services states on its website "Congress
incorporated into HIPAA provisions that mandated the
adoption of Federal privacy protections for individually
identifiable health information." (https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/index.html,
last accessed October 6, 2020)
9https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disability
(last accessed October 6, 2020).
10 https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/medical+condition
(last accessed October 6, 2020).
11 https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/medical-condition
(last accessed October 6, 2020).
12https://www.dictionary.com/browse/prevent
(last accessed October 6, 2020).
13 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prevent
(last accessed October 6, 2020) (capitals and italics
in original).
14See, e.g., November 8, 2006, minutes
of the meeting of the Electronic Meetings Subcommittee
of the FOIA Council (available at http://foiacouncil.dls.virginia.gov/subcom_mtgs/2006/sm110806elecmtg.htm),
which considered and recommended the original legislation
that has since been re-codified as subdivision A 1
of § 2.2-3708.2 (2007 Acts of Assembly, c. 945
enacting former § 2.2-3708.1), and stated that
"we should strive to encourage persons with disabilities
to serve on public boards and commissions, and that
impediments to such public service should be reduced
if not removed."
15Op. Atty. Gen. Va. 20-011 (internal citations
to Executive Order Number Fifty-One (Northam) (2020),
§ subdivision A 3 of 2.2-3708.2, and guidance
documents from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and the Virginia Department of Health omitted),
n.1, supra.
16https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/coronavirus/prevention-tips/
(last accessed October 6, 2020).
17Id. (hyperlinks omitted).
18https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/index.html(last
accessed October 6, 2020).
19Id.
20http://foiacouncil.dls.virginia.gov/Participation.pdf
(last accessed October 6, 2020).
|