CHARLOTTESVILLE – The University of Virginia has begun posting its doctors’ financial dealings online for the world to see. According to a Daily Progress news story by reporter Ted Strong, the decision mirrors a national trend in the health-care industry toward stricter reporting standards and also part of a years-long progression at UVA toward greater transparency. UVA Health System spokesman David Foreman said doctors’ relationships with outside business interests are still permitted, but now must be posted online. “If these relationships are there, there’s nothing wrong with disclosing them,” Foreman said. Recently the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors agreed that scientists submitting material will have to disclose a wide array of potential conflicts ofinterest. And a bill has been introduced in Congress that would require medical companies to put a listing of their payments to physicians online. The bill is currently in committee.
LOVETTSVILLE – Opposed to a proposed development in their town, Bing and Barbara Lam filed FOIA requests for various records related to the plan. Claiming the town did not respond to one request within the required five working days and calling the $259 fee for locating and copying the records unreasonable, the Lams sued the town for FOIA violations. General District Court Judge Dean Worcester sided with the town, even though the judge agreed with the Lams that the town’s record-keeping system “was not as it should have been.” Worcester also said the $259 charge to outsource the records’ processing was not unreasonable in light of the limitations on a small town staff attempting to provide full-service government to its citizens. Despite finding that the town did not comply within the required five days, Worcester nonetheless ruled against the Lams, finding the mistake was not willful. (Note: FOIA says that a failure to comply with FOIA’s procedures is a violation. Period. Whether a violation is willful relates to assessing fines and penalties.)
LYNCHBURG – In mid-November, after a contentious debate, the Lynchburg City Council voted 4-3 to keep all elements of the selection process for filling a vacant council seat confidential. Some council members noted that the process had been closed in 1992 and 1995, when the council had to fill seats left open by Steve Newman and Preston Bryant, respectively. Though allowed by the Freedom of Information Act, the Lynchburg News & Advance still asked rhetorically, “What is it about openness in government that scares the pants off . . . the Lynchburg City Council?” The council’s decision rankled enough people, though, to prompt the council to reexamine its decision. Mayor Joan Foster announced that, “doing the government’s business behind closed doors does not bode well.” The remaining council members fell in line, and the News & Advance said in an editorial, “Council deserves our thanks, and the community’s, for realizing the initial error of their ways.”
RADFORD – The City of Radford wrongly redacted portions of two documents it gave The Roanoke Times in response to a FOIA request, Radford Circuit Court Judge Joey Showalter ruled. In response to the paper’s FOIA request for other FOIA requests filed during a three-month period in 2008, the city redacted two requests that had been submitted by city employees, saying the requests were personnel files. The City had not presented a compelling argument to convert a FOIA request into a personnel record “merely because the requests make reference to individual city employees,” Showalter wrote in a Dec. 4 order.
RICHMOND – In mid-November, the Virginia Supreme Court advisory committee on rules scaled back its initial proposal to refer to jurors by number only in all criminal cases. The new rule now more closely resembles existing law to make juror identification anonymous when there is good cause to think they may be at risk of being injured, tampered with or intimidated. The Virginia Coalition for Open Government, the Virginia Press Association, the ACLU of Virginia and a defense attorneys organization all submitted comments opposing the first draft, noting that wholesale anonymity, without specific findings of harm, could be unconstitutional. The groups also noted the inability of the public to monitor the jury system in criminal cases. The new proposal eliminates restrictions included in the first draft that would have punished attorneys for disclosing juror information to anyone, including, in some cases, their clients. Shortly after the new draft was released, the City of Virginia Beach announced it would no longer routinely close off juror information as it had been doing. The new rule is slated for review by the Judicial Council in the spring.
RICHMOND – After announcing it was dropping its plan to mail 350,000 flyers to Virginia voters detailing whether they or their neighbors voted in past elections, the Know Campaign found itself on the wrong end of a State Board of Elections order to disclose who gave the voting-history data to them. State law prohibits the release of voting-history data except to candidates, elected officials and political party chairs. The Know Campaign pushed back in early December, suing the state and arguing the lists should be made available to everyone. The Roanoke Times agreed, saying in an editorial that the group had “civic righteousness” on its side.