Megan Rhyne's blog

Good piece today in the Daily Press about York County facing a $7 million tax refund bill if the owners of a defunct area refinery win their tax abatement appeal.

The issue came to light because of an email obtained by a York County resident through a FOIA request. The resident forwarded it to the paper, and the story soon followed.

In my job, I get to hear from folks all over the state, usually when they've been denied a request for records. This week alone I've heard.....

Dear justices of the United States Supreme Court -

Your ruling Monday did not surprise me. You said that it's OK for Virginia's FOIA to reject FOIA requests made by residents from other states. Virginia is for lovers, you said, but not for out-of-state FOIA requesters.

A lot of ink has been spilled over the years about whether government can or should be run as a business. Whole political philosophies have developed in praise of or eschewing the notion. Personally, I don't know which side has it right, at least in terms of planning, management, budgeting, etc. But I do know one area where the two don't mix, where government cannot and should not be operated like a business: access to public records and, particularly, public meetings.

Yesterday, the governor signed a bill that will conceal all concealed handgun permit applications. Supporters rejoiced. Open government groups did not. In the process, my opposition is deemed "leftist anti-gun lunacy."

It is nothing of the sort. I just don't believe that the government -- specifically the courts -- should be able to administer a government-mandated permitting process in total secrecy.

"The Freedom of Information Act is ridiculous."

Yes, someone actually said that. Someone who works for a publicly funded institution. Someone who had the ear of a public body that performs public functions. A public body who, by the way, has the power to remove the president of one of the nation's most prestigious universities without warning and without consensus.

Readers of this column know that I frequently encourage government officials and employees to adhere to the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act as well as to the letter of it.

“Turn to the right!”

That’s what Holly Hunter’s character Ed yells out to her future husband H.I. in Raising Arizona as he poses for yet another mug shot because he can’t stop robbing convenience stores.

I got an inquiry last week from a police chief in a smallish town. He told me about a department employee who went through the grievance process after he was fired from his job. A grievance panel upheld the dismissal.

The employee got a copy of the panel's report, and the chief was saying that he knew he'd get media requests for the report. He wanted to know what his obligations were under FOIA. He was worried about violating the employee's privacy rights.

Every year, for every elected office, candidates are asked what their position would be on Policy X or Policy Y. Candidates also make promises about what they would do about Issue A or Issue B. And some try to assure voters that they would adhere to Principle M but not Principle N (or vice versa) if elected.

How often does Policy X or Y, Issue A or B, or Principle M or N refer to open government?

Not too often, right? But shouldn’t it?