Virginia Coalition for Open Government

Fredericksburg FOI Case

Free Lance-Star editorial: “Ruling restores common sense“

VML cautions members to avoid using e-mails “rapidly fired back and forth among the members of council. Further, councils should not use e-mails or other correspondence as a means to reach decisions on matters the council faces.” (Member newsletter)

BRIEF BANK

  • Mayor Beck’s opening brief (Appellants)
  • Shelton’s opening brief (Appellees)
  • Beck’s reply brief (Appellant’s Reply)
  • Amicus brief of the Va. Coalition for Open Government (VCOG)
  • Amicus brief of the ACLU of Virginia Inc. (ACLU)
  • Amicus brief of the Va. Muncipal League and the Va. Association of Counties (VML/VACo)

NEWS AND EDITORIALS

  • Op-ed column by Councilman Tom Fortune: “…the cost of defending these baseless suits is the price we must pay to ensure that decent, dedicated and honest people continue to run for public office and serve on City Council. . . What is undeniable is that this case was complex and time-consuming. In addition to the sheer number of counts, extensive legal research in an arcane and untested area of law was required.”
  • The trial: When non-simultaneous emails trigger an illegal meeting
  • Related hearing: When sanctions get invoked (PDF)
  • Frericksburg e-mail case could set precedent for the nation. Charles Davis: “Open-meetings laws are more about what’s being discussed and by whom. It doesn’t matter so much the form.” Frosty Landon: financial sanctions could discourage people from asking questions about what officials are doing. (Washington Post, Dec 21 2002)
  • Fredericksburg e-mail case has attracted statewide attention. VML opposes the ruling. Mark Flynn: “When e-mails are really the equivalent to a letter, when there’s a time separation, I don’t think it can be meeting.” (www.vml.org, Dec 2002)
  • Fredericksburg officials’ e-mail use ruled illegal; judge says councilmen violated state’s open-meetings law in a three-way email “discussion” — but a three-member street-corner encounter was a permissible get-together, not an illegal meeting. (Free Lance-Star)
  • Judge fines plaintiffs in Fredericksburg e-mail case for including two unsupported claims in their suit. The judge ordered payments of $8,000 for filing frivolous counts in the suit. The attorney representing the city council members said the money will go to offset the more than $90,000 the city is being billed for legal representation. Councilmen will appeal the judge’s ruling that an e-mail exchange constituted a meeting under FOIA. (Free Lance-Star)
  • Editorial on the sanctions: “Judge Scott protected the interests of both taxpayers and voters when he granted the defendants’ plea that Mr. Shelton, et al. be made to pay attorney fees for some of their more preposterous accusations….There is more than enough money in the pockets of the public’s arch-enemies to fund mischief in assorted varieties, and a larger supply than three of those in whom vindictiveness runs a photo finish with buffoonery. But Judge Scott has served notice that mischief comes with a price….” (Free Lance-Star)
  • Motion for sanctions
  • Transcript/sanction hearing
  • VML says the judge was wrong in one of his rulings.”The act does not support the argument that sending letters back and forth could constitute a meeting, and does not support these e-mails (sent hours or even a day apart) as constituting a meeting.” (www.vml.org, Dec 2002)
  • From Government Technology magazine, Oct. 2003: “Governments should consider refining their open-meeting legislation to allow for open e-mail. As more citizens began to realize the real action was taking place prior to the formal meeting — and that they could be part of this action — they would begin to participate in this traditionally hidden area of the public-policy process. As long as electronic communications take place via an open channel — either a Web forum or e-mail list that all citizens can subscribe to — such communications (should) not be considered in violation of open-meeting laws.”Op-ed by Frosty Landon (Free Lance-Star): “To keep local government fully transparent in the Internet age, the Virginia Supreme Court should uphold the heart of Judge Scott’s opinion. For, as the Fredericksburg Circuit Court wisely sensed, improper electronic meetings can easily occur when ‘assemblages’ of elected public officials gather at the computers, ‘simultaneously’ or not.”

    • s

  • George Mason Law Review article by Beck attorneys: Some Assembly Required: The Application Of State Open Meeting Laws To Email Correspondence

EARLIER E-MAIL ISSUES

  • Loudoun supervisors unplug e-mails in rezoning debate (Washington Post, May 9, 2001)
  • The James City County Board of Supervisors conducted a lively debate over whether they should open their meetings with a prayer. No member of the public witnessed the debate.. It developed across the county’s electronic mail network. (Opinion column)