Transparency News 12/10/18

Monday
December 10, 2018

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

state & local news stories

“She apologized for the oversight and said that it is not common practice for the board to vote without reopening the doors to the public.”

The Virginia Commonwealth University board of visitors approved a 14 percent bonus for President Michael Rao — already one of the highest-paid public university presidents in the U.S. — in a vote made behind closed doors Friday. The vote occurred while a sign placed in front of the doors of the meeting room prohibited public entry because the board was meeting in closed session. But Virginia’s open meetings law requires public boards to reconvene in an open session before voting on anything discussed in a closed meeting. Pam Lepley, vice president for university relations at VCU, told the Richmond Times-Dispatch that the failure to reopen the doors following the closed session was an unintentional oversight because the board’s secretary incorrectly believed that the doors had already been opened. She apologized for the oversight and said that it is not common practice for the board to vote without reopening the doors to the public.
Richmond Times-Dispatch

The state Supreme Court ruled this week that attorneys for the city wrongly withheld information from a local dentist who sought to find out how the city spent $340,000 while fighting him in court. The opinion was issued Thursday by the entire seven-member court, which heard arguments last month in the case brought by Dr. Allen Bergano. The court determined that, in multiple instances, the city redacted — or blacked out — information about its legal spending that was not protected by attorney-client privilege or work-product exceptions.  The panel ordered the case sent back to Circuit Court Judge Thomas Padrick, who had allowed the information to be withheld. The opinion stated that the judge should review the records again and require disclosures consistent with the high court’s ruling. It also said he should consider awarding costs and attorney’s fees to Bergano and his legal team.
The Virginian-Pilot

Roy West was Richmond’s mayor when Dick Harman attended his first meeting of the Richmond City Council as its new public announcer. The year was 1988, and Harman, a journeyman broadcaster who preferred sports over news, took the job on a trial run. “I said, ‘OK. Let’s give it 30 days. We’ll see how I like it.’” Thirty days turned into 30 years for Harman, who has sat through an estimated 700 meetings of the nine-member council in the three decades since. His run ends Monday, when he will deliver his final broadcast of WCVE’s “Gavel-to-Gavel” that airs on cable channel 24 and streams online.
Richmond Times-Dispatch

A state attorney general’s office lawyer says the New College Institute board meeting called into question for possibly skirting the spirit of open record laws never strayed from compliance. The reason, she wrote in an email, is because she personally opened a door to the room following the closed session for the public to enter Monday evening. “The closed Meeting of the NCI board of directors on Monday was conducted in compliance with Virginia Code Section 2.2-3712,” Senior Assistant Attorney General M. Elizabeth Griffin wrote. “I opened the door to the meeting room myself at the conclusion of the closed session.” She did not state which of the two doors to the meeting room she opened. No one announced immediately to a Martinsville Bulletin reporter waiting in the hallway – roughly 10 feet away from one of the doors – that the meeting was back open. Also, the reporter did not see a door to the meeting room opened.
Martinsvile Bulletin

editorials & columns

“He’s telling us to kick the tires, but then he’s telling us what shoes to wear, and where to kick.”

It’s no secret that the state’s most important open government law no longer works as effectively as its authors intended. It has an excessive number of exemptions, many of which are overly broad, and lawmakers are all too eager to add more. And the Virginia Supreme Court seems to relish every opportunity to punch another hole in it. But in this case, Bergano — and the public’s right to know — came out on the winning side. The Supreme Court ruled this week that the city could not claim that the information was protected by attorney-client privilege, and that it would have to provide those details to the public. The decision could well prove to be a landmark for government transparency. So rare are these victories — so seldom do the courts pry open the doors of government to allow more sunshine in — that each one should be celebrated accordingly. 
The Virginian-Pilot
(NOTE: the opinion said the city could not claim the attorney-client privilege protected ALL of the information. Some of the entries might still be exempt, but some are not.)

We’re continuing in our guarded optimism for plans to redevelop the area around the Richmond Coliseum, but we’re becoming a little concerned about how this process is playing out. In his story about Monday night’s City Council meeting, Times-Dispatch reporter Mark Robinson quoted the city’s chief administrative officer, Selena Cuffee-Glenn, as saying “The citizens have spoken. There is no need for a commission.” The citizens who “have spoken” were the random assortment who showed up Monday for a public hearing about creating the commission, not those who might worry about the possible fiscal risks of a $1.4 billion redevelopment project. Because, again, that plan has not been formally submitted. “He’s telling us to kick the tires, but then he’s telling us what shoes to wear, and where to kick,” one council member was heard saying to another. This project demands as much scrutiny as possible. We applaud Stoney for thinking big, but we also urge caution.
Richmond Times-Dispatch

If state prison officials are censoring inmate letters as claimed, then they’re violating the U.S. Constitution and must be stopped. Local lawyer and activist Jeff Fogel says that’s exactly what’s happening, and has filed a suit against officials on behalf of an inmate who says his criticisms about the prison were blocked. One thing that surely will be disputed by defendants is whether they actually did what the lawsuit says they did. If the answer is yes, a subsequent question will center on whether what they did was illegal or unconstitutional. But, alone, the lawsuit’s claims are enough to cause serious concern among advocates of constitutional rights — which should be each and every one of us.
The Daily Progress