Transparency News 11/26/14

Wednesday, November 26, 2014  
State and Local Stories

In a 12-page legal filing, the city of Richmond defends its refusal to disclose the confidentiality agreements surrounding the departure of former chief administrative officer Byron C. Marshall. The city says it and Marshall have a “reasonable expectation of confidentiality” that the documents City Council members were asked to sign would not become public. The city has refused multiple Freedom of Information Act requests seeking the non-disclosure agreements that members of the city’s elected body were asked to sign in order to learn details of Marshall’s sudden exit in September. Marshall oversaw the city government’s daily operations for more than five years and was dismissed with little explanation. “Logic dictates that an employee’s resignation certainly relates to the nature of employment, job capacity or performance, or is otherwise related to the scope of employment; and a document concerning such resignation, by its very definition, contains information bearing upon Marshall’s employment relationship with the city,” the city states in its filing, signed by Deputy City Attorney Stephen M. Hall.
Times-Dispatch

Republican state Sen. John Watkins is retiring after three and a half decades in the General Assembly, throwing the future of party control of the Senate into chaos once more. Watkins gave the often-given explanation of wanting to spend more time with his grandchildren. But part of his explanation for leaving that Watkins cited to CBS 6 in Richmond is the increased scrutiny in the wake of the indictment and conviction of former Gov. Bob McDonnell. Watkins told the station he had been considering retirement ever since McDonnell’s September conviction. “I’ve been thinking of it since this whole thing with Bob McDonnell. It will make it very difficult for someone like myself,” Watkins told CBS 6.“I would always be called into question.”
Wastchdog.org Virginia Bureau

National Stories

A day after the St. Louis County prosecutor took the rare step of releasing thousands of pages of grand jury testimony in the Michael Brown case, his move prompted a sharp debate among legal experts, some of whom charged that what looked like the prosecutor’s transparency and neutrality cloaked his real goal — to ensure that no indictment of the police officer occurred.
New York Times

Stephen Frazzini, a judge in New Britain, Connecticut’s Superior Court, has forbidden Connecticut Law Tribune to publish an article, Thomas B. Scheffey reports. The article, by Isaac Avilucea, concerns a document published, apparently by mistake, on the Connecticut Judicial Branch’s website. The Law Tribune says the order is unconstitutional prior restraint, and has filed a motion asking it be lifted. The publication’s lawyer, Daniel Klau, tells Scheffey “I am actually under a restraining order about what I can tell my own client” and that “in a child protection case on the juvenile court docket, the court granted a party’s request for an injunction barring the Connecticut Law Tribune from publishing information that it lawfully obtained about the case.”
Poynter

 

Editorials/Columns

The videos produced by body cams—equipment worn by police officers in some localities—have been touted as new avenues to police transparency and strong evidence to be used at trials. But is that video a public record, subject to open-government laws or something closely held by law enforcement agencies to be used only at trial or in-house disciplinary investigations? There shouldn’t be any confusion in Virginia, says Maria Everett, executive director of the Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council, the state agency that provides legal opinions to government officials, the public and news media. “To me, they are public records,” Everett said. Everett said they are similar to 911 audio recordings and dashboard cameras, which also are public records subject to disclosure.
Dick Hammerstrom, Free Lance-Star

Someday, the full story behind the change of heart on the Columbia Pike and Crystal City streetcar projects by County Board members Jay Fisette and Mary Hynes may come to light. We’re not suggesting that Fisette and Hynes were being untruthful in explaining last week’s stunning turnabout. They explained their decisions as an attempt at ending community discord and moving forward in what clearly has become a new political and economic environment across the county. But we doubt Arlington has been told the FULL story. Was this decision a knee-jerk reaction to John Vihstadt’s election victory earlier in November? Did it come about because Fisette and Hynes have seen financial projections – for the streetcar project or for the county government as a whole – that scared them so much they decided to drop the project? Those who know aren’t talking, and those who are talking, well, they likely don’t know.
Arlington Sun Gazette