|
VIRGINIA
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
ADVISORY COUNCIL
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
|
June 12, 2002, Richmond
The Freedom of Information
Advisory Council (the "Council") unanimously elected
Senator R. Edward Houck as chair of the Council and newly
appointed Delegate S. Chris Jones as vice-chair. Senator Houck
and Delegate Jones will each serve two-year terms in this
capacity in accordance with the Council’s enabling statute.
Recap of 2002
Legislation
Council staff provided
a recap of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and other related
access bills considered by the 2002 Session of the General
Assembly. Of particular note were the enactment of all FOIA
bills recommended by the Council, including HB 173, establishing
the Council as a permanent legislative agency; HB 700, creating
both a record and meeting exemption relating to terrorism
for public bodies; HB 731, authorizing the withholding of
certain citizen email addresses and other information from
release; and HB 729, clarifying the application of FOIA to
constitutional officers. A complete listing and description
of FOIA and other related access bills considered by the 2002
Session of the General Assembly is available on the Council’s
website.
Bill Referred
to Council for Study
The House Committee
on General Laws carried over HB 900 (Purkey) and referred
it to the Council for study. HB 900 would authorize any public
body subject to FOIA to petition the circuit court for a protective
order relieving it, in whole or in part, of its obligations
to produce requested records where the request is unreasonable,
not made in good faith, or motivated primarily by an intent
to abuse, harass, or intimidate the public body. The bill
also allows the court to require the requester to pay the
reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the public body in
obtaining the protective order. The Council appointed a subcommittee
of Roger Wiley, John Edwards, and Wat Hopkins (all members
of the Council) to study this issue and report its progress
at the next Council meeting.
FOIA and Contract
Negotiations
The Council next
discussed the apparent conflict between the Virginia Public
Procurement Act (VPPA) and FOIA as it relates the confidentiality
of procurement transactions and the open meeting provisions
of FOIA. A related issue discussed was the subject of a recent
Council advisory opinion relating to the protection of records
and other documents compiled during contract negotiations.
In cases not involving the VPPA, the opinion noted that currently
no record exemption exists generally for a public body to
withhold release of these records even though the bargaining
position of the public body may be adversely affected. Because
these issues have been the subjects of several inquiries to
the Council, the Council appointed a subcommittee of Nolan
Yelich and Roger Wiley to examine the relevant statutes and
make a recommendation to the Council for resolution.
FOIA and Political
and Other Caucuses
The Council next
began its deliberations on the treatment of political and
other caucuses of the General Assembly under FOIA. In response
to recent news articles concerning meetings held by political
caucuses of the General Assembly, Council staff briefed the
Council on other states’ approaches to this issue and the
need for clarity in Virginia’s law. Political caucuses are
not public bodies as defined by FOIA because they are not
an organization within the Commonwealth supported wholly or
principally by public funds. The issue becomes less clear,
however, when party caucuses of the General Assembly discuss
legislation that is before the General Assembly. In addition
to party caucuses, there are also regional and other caucuses
established in the General Assembly. Further, it was pointed
out that if a rule were established concerning caucuses of
the General Assembly, should it also apply to other public
bodies, including local governments? Due to the complexity
of these issues, the Council directed that they continue to
be an agenda item for future Council meetings. The Council
expressed a desire to hear from the various caucuses and the
public during the public comment portion of future Council
meetings and directed staff to contact the various caucuses
established in the General Assembly and invite their comment.
In a related matter,
the Council unanimously agreed to formalize its policy not
to render advisory opinions when a matter is in litigation.
Additionally, the Council added a provision to this policy
that should staff be subpoenaed solely on issues of law involving
FOIA, staff is authorized to file a motion to quash any such
subpoena.
Virginia’s Open
Records Laws Were Rated One Of The Five Best In The Nation
Staff advised the
Council that Virginia’s open records law were rated one of
the five best in the nation by the Better Government Association
of Illinois. The rating was based on procedural criteria such
as (i) the amount of time a public agency
or department has
to respond to a citizen’s request for a public document; (ii)
the process a citizen must go through to appeal the decision
of an agency to deny the request for the public record; and
(iii) whether an appeal is expedited when it reaches the court
system. The penalty criteria weigh (a) whether the complaining
party, upon receiving a favorable judgment in court, is awarded
attorney fees and costs; and (b) whether the agency that has
wrongfully withheld a record is subject to
any civil or criminal punishment.
Statewide FOIA
Workshops and Stats on Services Rendered by Council
Staff advised the
Council that the annual statewide FOIA Workshops offered by
the Council were being scheduled for early September at seven
locations: Big Stone Gap, Roanoke, Harrisonburg, Loudoun County,
Prince William County, Richmond, and Virginia Beach.
Staff apprised the
Council of the latest statistics on the services rendered
by the Council. Since July 2000, the Council has responded
to a total of 1,689 requests for opinions, both written and
informal (i.e., telephone or email). Of that number, the Council
has issued 75 written advisory opinions. Citizens continue
to make the most requests for assistance, followed by state
and local government officials, and media, respectively.
Public Comment
The Council received
a copy of draft guidelines for public bodies to use in calculating
their actual costs for producing documents under FOIA. The
draft guidelines were offered by a citizen who has invested
time and energy in trying to understand why actual costs vary
from agency to agency and from locality to locality. A suggestion
that public bodies conduct a cost analysis to ensure that
charges made for document production reflect the actual cost
to the public body was included in the draft guidelines. The
draft guidelines also offered examples of ways public bodies
could keep costs to a requester low, including enlisting the
help of volunteers, keeping indices of records up-to-date,
and making routinely requested records more easily available.
Additionally, a
representative of the Virginia Coalition for Open Government
commended the General Assembly for making the Council a permanent
legislative agency and encouraged the Council to keep informal
mediation of FOIA disputes a priority.
The Council set
its next meeting for Monday, August 19, 2002, at 2:00 p.m.
in House Room D of the General Assembly Building.
The Honorable R.
Edward Houck, Chair
Maria J.K. Everett, Executive Director
|