Transparency News 9/30/15

Wednesday, September 30, 2015
 

State and Local Stories

The Freedom of Information Advisory Council meets today at 10 a.m. in the General Assembly Building. I strongly encourage YOU to attend.

The Warren County Sheriff’s Office has joined the growing number of law enforcement agencies outfitting their members with body cameras. Members of the Warren County Sheriff’s Office have been following the debate over police-community relations and the accompanying calls for greater openness by law enforcement agencies in responding to complaints about excessive use of force. Deputy Charles Brogan said the arrival of the cameras in mid-September was a response to the heightened concerns, and the realization that videotaping, whether done by police or by citizens, has become a common part of law enforcement in the 21st century. Brogan’s supervisor, Lt. Charles Bockey, agreed that body cameras and other forms of technology are a big trend in law enforcement. “It helps with the transparency that everybody talks about nowadays,” Bockey said. Bockey said video footage that is part of an ongoing court case or investigation is off limits to the public. Those seeking access to other video obtained through body cameras must obtain permission from Sheriff Daniel T. McEathron.
Northern Virginia Daily

Efforts to market the Afton Inn continue a year after a deal that gave its former owner the old Town Hall. Council approved a deal last fall that gave the former Town Hall property on North Royal Avenue to Francisco Barros, then owner of the Afton Inn. In turn, Barros gave the Afton Inn to the Front Royal Warren County Economic Development Authority. The authority agreed to market the Afton Inn property for commercial and/or residential use. Council met in closed session briefly Monday night to discuss the matter with Jennifer McDonald, executive director of the authority. Council took no action on the topic after returning to open session. McDonald said Tuesday she and council discussed “an unannounced prospect” for the Afton Inn. Asked if the town is considering purchasing the property, McDonald said this is one of the options broached. The town has not made an offer for the property, McDonald said. Alan Gernhardt, staff attorney for the Freedom of Information Advisory Council, said Tuesday that if the town is a prospective buyer or acquirer of the property, then the matter falls under the real estate exemption. Gernhardt said he would see a problem if the town was not a potential buyer.
Northern Virginia Daily

Arlington County Commonwealth's Attorney Theo Stamos (D) has closed her investigation into Loudoun Chairman Scott York's (R) campaign finance reports, Stamos told the Times-Mirror Sept. 29. "The bottom line is there is no 'there' there," Stamos said. Loudoun conservative activist Sally Mann filed the campaign finance allegation against York with the Loudoun Commonwealth's Attorney's office in August. Loudoun Commonwealth's Attorney Jim Plowman, a Republican, then handed off the case to Stamos to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
Loudoun Times-Mirror

The University of Virginia’s Miller Center and the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate today released the Edward M. Kennedy Oral History Project. The release includes 19 interviews with the late Massachusetts senator about his life and Senate career, which spanned almost five decades and 10 presidential administrations before his death in 2009. It also includes about 170 interviews with family, friends, colleagues, foreign leaders, journalists and staffers. Transcripts of the interviews are available at millercenter.org/oralhistory/edward-kennedy and www.emkinstitute.org/resources/oral-history-miller-center.
UVA Today



Editorials/Columns

Lawmakers are banking on the fact that you don't care about openness. They claim the issue is one manufactured by the media and use a lack of public outcry to justify their disinterest. They firmly believe there are no consequences to inaction. So voters must make the decision in Department of Corrections v. Surovell a turning point. That ruling by the Supreme Court, handed down this month, allows documents to be withheld entirely rather than redacted and released. It means any record with sensitive information can legally be kept from public view, handing immense power to the officials who possess them. That should be deeply disturbing to a commonwealth defined by statesmen whose deep skepticism of government power helped lead the nation to independence. But it should similarly trouble citizens who want to know how their tax dollars are spent or how their elected officials reached a particular decision.
Daily Press

Since there has been much evasion and obfuscation about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s email use, it seems appropriate to step back and simply review what we know in light of the law. It’s also instructive to compare Clinton’s situation to arguably the most famous case of our time related to the improper handling of classified materials, namely, the case of Gen. David Petraeus. The very purpose of Clinton’s server was to intentionally retain documents and materials — all emails and attachments — on the server in her house, including classified materials. The intent required is only to undertake the action, i.e., to retain the classified documents and materials in the unauthorized fashion addressed in this statute. That’s it. It borders on inconceivable that Clinton didn’t know that the emails she received — and more obviously, the emails that she created, stored and sent with the server — would contain classified information. Simply put, Clinton is already in just as bad — or worse — of a legal situation than Petraeus faced.
Ken Cuccinelli, Richmond Times-Dispatch

This is Banned Books Week, an annual occasion that calls attention to an issue at once serious and overblown. The week celebrates the freedom to read, and as purveyors of material meant to be read, we can think of few freedoms more worthy of celebration — and protection. Every year schools find themselves confronted by parents who think a given book ought not to be taught or made available to pupils — usually because it contains sexually explicit material, profanity or even simply “unsuitable” material, which is a fussy way of saying somebody just doesn’t like it. Still, it should be noted that parents have every right to complain. 
Richmond Times-Dispatch