|
|
VIRGINIA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
COMMONWEALTH
OF VIRGINIA |
AO-01-26
February
23, 2026
Joshua
Stanfield
Yorktown, Virginia 23692
Request received 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 email of December 12, 2024.
Dear
Mr. Stanfield:
You have requested that the Virginia Freedom of Information
Advisory Council (FOIA Council) address the following
questions:
(1)
Does the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (§
2.2-3700 et seq. of the Code of Virginia) (FOIA)
require any degree of specificity concerning the
"location" of a public meeting?
(2)
Does simply listing the locality in which a public
meeting will take place satisfy the location requirement
in subsection D of § 2.2-3707 of the Code of
Virginia given the policy statement in subsection
B of § 2.2-3700 of the Code of Virginia?
Factual
Background
As background information, on December 5, 2024, you
submitted a request under FOIA to representatives
of the Commonwealth's Attorneys' Services Council
for "copies of any public notice(s) released
concerning yesterday's Council Meeting" and asked
if the notice on their website (https://www.cas.state.va.us/event/council-meeting-45/)
was their public notice.
In
response to your request under FOIA, you were informed
that public notices of meetings may be found on the
Commonwealth's Attorneys' Services Council website
(www.cas.state.va.us).
The public notice of the December 4, 2024, meeting
of the Commonwealth's Attorneys' Services Council
was posted as follows:
Council
Meeting
Date: December 4, 2024
Time: 2:00 pm
Location: Charlottesville, VA
When
minutes of the December 4, 2024 meeting were posted
to the Commonwealth's Attorneys' Services Council
website, the minutes showed that the meeting was conducted
at the Boar's Head Resort. A similar practice was
utilized when posting the minutes of subsequent meetings,
which included the location of the meetings with the
minutes but not in the notice. Upon further review
of the Commonwealth's Attorneys' Services Council
website,1 this office observed that notices for future
meetings were posted as follows:
| April
6, 2025 |
1:00PM |
Norfolk,
VA |
| May
7, 2025 |
12:00PM
|
Richmond,
VA |
| June
18, 2025 |
12:00PM |
Richmond,
VA |
| July
31, 2025 |
5:00PM |
Virginia
Beach, VA |
| September
24, 2025 |
12:00PM |
Richmond,
VA |
| November
6, 2025 |
12:00PM |
Richmond,
VA |
| December
3, 2025 |
2:00PM |
Staunton,
VA |
| December
5, 2025 |
12:30PM |
Staunton,
VA |
Analysis
This section addresses both of the questions you posed.
As you noted in your initial correspondence, this
office has not previously issued guidance explaining
the location requirement to be included in a notice
for a meeting. While this office has opined on other
facets of the notice requirement, specifically time
and date,2 the requirements for what constitutes proper
location have yet to be addressed explicitly by the
FOIA Council. We begin by examining whether FOIA requires
any degree of specificity concerning the "location"
of a public meeting and subsequently turn to considering
whether merely listing the locality in which a public
meeting will take place satisfies the location requirement
in subsection D of § 2.2-3707 of the Code of
Virginia. We analyze this second issue keeping in
mind the policy statement in subsection B of §
2.2-3700 of the Code of Virginia that "[t]he
affairs of government are not intended to be conducted
in an atmosphere of secrecy since at all times the
public is to be the beneficiary of any action taken
at any level of government" and that all public
"meetings shall be presumed open, unless an exemption
is properly invoked."
The
short answer to your first question is no, there is
no provision of FOIA specifying requirements for the
level of detail that a public body must provide when
listing the location of a meeting within a notice.
The only explicit requirement regarding notice and
location is found in subsection D of § 2.2-3707
of the Code of Virginia, which states, "Every
public body shall give notice of the date, time, [and]
location . . . of its meetings." [Emphasis added.]
Next,
we turn to your second question. As noted above, the
location requirement for the notice of a meeting in
subsection D of § 2.2-3707 of the Code of Virginia
is not specifically addressed in FOIA or in prior
advisory opinions, Virginia court cases, or Attorney
General Opinions. However, FOIA does have specificity
requirements when making requests for public records
that are informative by comparison, although not controlling
in regard to meetings. FOIA's policy statement in
subsection B of § 2.2-3700 of the Code of Virginia
requires "public bodies and their officers and
employees to make reasonable efforts to reach an agreement
with a requester concerning the production of the
records requested." Additionally, subsection
B of § 2.2-3704 of the Code of Virginia requires
that "[a] request for public records shall identify
the requested records with reasonable specificity."
This provision has been given a practical standard
by this office to mean that "a request needs
to be specific enough to enable a public body to begin
to process the request and, if clarification is required,
to ask relevant questions to understand the scope
of the request."3 The requirement established
in these provisions, along with common sense, is instructive
in determining that when posting the location of a
meeting, a public body should always provide sufficient
information to allow citizens to attend the meeting.
Therefore, that level of specificity would require
a public body to provide detail beyond simply listing
the general locality (city, town, or county) where
a meeting will be held, because only knowing the locality
is generally not enough to allow attendance. However,
because there are multiple ways to identify a meeting
location, there is no specific black-letter rule on
what is the proper way to do so. For example, in a
small locality where the town hall has only one meeting
room, saying that the meeting will be held at "Town
Hall, Locality" would be enough. In a larger
locality, such notice might be insufficient as there
could be multiple meeting rooms within the same building,
so the specific room may need to be identified in
order for someone to attend the meeting (such as "City
Hall, Meeting Room 123, Locality").
Furthermore,
this interpretation aligns with FOIA policy in subsection
B of § 2.2-3700 of the Code of Virginia, which
states that FOIA's purpose is to ensure "free
entry to meetings of public bodies wherein the business
of the people is being conducted." FOIA policy
also states that:
The affairs of government are not intended to be
conducted in an atmosphere of secrecy since at all
times the public is to be the beneficiary of any
action taken at any level of government. Unless
a public body or its officers or employees specifically
elect to exercise an exemption provided by this
chapter or any other statute, every meeting shall
be open to the public and all public records shall
be available for inspection and copying upon request.
All public records and meetings shall be presumed
open, unless an exemption is properly invoked.4
FOIA
policy further directs that the provisions of FOIA
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."5 Based on the foregoing,
it follows generally that the more information a public
body supplies when providing notice related to a meeting's
location, the better. Because FOIA policy dictates
that meetings shall not be conducted in an atmosphere
of secrecy,6 reasonable specificity in denoting the
location of a meeting achieves this important statutory
purpose.
Moreover,
recent Virginia case law provides a useful point of
comparison. In Suffolk City School Board v. Wahlstrom,
the Supreme Court of Virginia examined a variety of
issues relating to FOIA. One such issue was the importance
of allowing the public to physically attend a public
meeting. In this case, Wahlstrom argued, among other
things, that "[FOIA's] provisions stating that
the public be granted 'free entry to' and the right
to 'be present' at meetings of public bodies require
that members of the public be allowed to attend public
meetings in person in the room in which the meeting
is being conducted."7 Ultimately, the Supreme
Court of Virginia agreed with Wahlstrom, concluding
that attendance by the public at in-person meetings
necessitates allowing the public the ability to enter
the actual room where the meeting is being held.8
While
this case examines only what it means to allow for
the physical presence of citizens at a public meeting
and does not address the provision of adequate notice
of the location, the spirit of the decision helps
inform the specificity requirement related to notice
and location. By logical extension, entry into and
physical presence in a meeting room require that citizens
must first be able to locate the meeting. Therefore,
a public body, as a matter of both statutory compliance
and best practice, must provide sufficient specificity
regarding the meeting's location in its notice.
Despite the paucity of Virginia secondary source material,
other states have similar meeting notice requirements
that may provide insight. For example, the Attorney
General of Maryland issued an opinion addressing the
state's notice requirement, which states, in relevant
part,"[W]e read the notice requirement to include
a good-faith effort by the public body to invite the
public to its meetings and, as part of that, to reliably
provide the public with accurate meeting information."9
Accurate
information and an open invitation from the public
body to the public are deemed by the Attorney General
of Maryland to be crucial in satisfying the notice
requirement. Likewise, in Virginia, accurate information
is necessary to satisfy FOIA's notice requirements.
Accurate meeting information requires, inherently,
reasonable location specificity so that the public
may be invited and may attend, if so inclined.
Conclusion
As you highlighted in your initial correspondence
with this office, the public body in question listed
only the locality where the meeting was taking place.
The degree of specificity in this instance is clearly
insufficient to provide an open invitation, because
listing only the city does not provide enough information
for a citizen to attend the meeting. In light of FOIA's
policy statement found in subsection B of § 2.2-3700
of the Code of Virginia, if citizens of the Commonwealth
cannot reasonably locate a meeting based on the meeting's
public notice, the notice becomes almost meaningless
– the public will know that a meeting is being held,
but will not have sufficient information to attend
it. By listing the location of a meeting with reasonable
specificity (such as by using a building name, street
address, room number, or other information as appropriate),
a public body can provide sufficient notice to the
public. Lastly, we acknowledge that while numerous
meeting locations may exist, reasonable specificity
depends on the circumstances, so certain entities
may post a general meeting location, if, for example,
the location was the only place where a meeting could
occur. If there are multiple possible meeting locations,
then more specificity may be necessary. In this instance,
identifying the meeting location as "Charlottesville"
was insufficient, but as an example, identifying it
as "the Boar's Head Resort, Charlottesville"
would have enabled the public to go to the main location
(the Boar's Head Resort) and, once there, get more
information regarding the specific room by asking
staff or checking a directory. The practical standard
for meetings being held in person therefore is that
the notice must identify the location where the meeting
is held with sufficient information for the public
to attend the meeting in person.
Sincerely,
Matteo
Murrelle
Senior Attorney
Alan
Gernhardt, Esq.
Executive Director
1Commonwealth
Attorneys Services Council, Council Meetings, https://www.cas.state.va.us/meetings/
(last visited,
2Freedom of Information Advisory Opinions AO-18-01,
AO-02-04, AO-06-07 and AO-08-07 (noting that our discussion
pertains only to in-person meetings where physical
presence/location is required, not virtual meetings).
3See Freedom of Information Advisory
Opinion AO-01-00.
4Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-3700(B).
5Id.
6Id.
7Suffolk City Sch. Bd. v. Wahlstrom,
886 S.E.2d 248, 254 (Va. 2023).
8See id.
9Md. Att'y Gen. 12 OMCB Opinions 108, 109 (2019). https://www.marylandattorneygeneral.gov/Opinions
OMCB Documents/Vol12/12OMCB108.pdf
|