Transparency News 4/17/18

		Tuesday April 17, 2018
	Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

	VCOG news
The case seeks disclosure of the detailed billing records of attorneys used by a city in a land-use dispute with a local dentist.	The Virginia Coalition for Open Government filed a friend-of-the court case in the Virginia Supreme Court case Bergano v. City of Virginia Beach, No. 171183, on Friday, April 13. The case seeks disclosure of the detailed billing records of attorneys used by the City of Virginia Beach in a land-use dispute with Dr. Allan Bergano, a city dentist. Dr. Bergano, who won the underlying land-use case, received heavily redacted copies of the billing records: only the dates, number of hours and the name of the timekeeper were disclosed. The hourly rates and the tasks performed were blacked out. The city claimed the redactions were necessary to protect the attorney-client privilege. The brief, authored by VCOG board member Christopher E. Gatewood of Threshold Counsel, PC, in Richmond, asks the high court to overrule a circuit court ruling in the city’s favor, and cites a Virginia attorney general’s opinion on point: “it is my opinion that the attorney-client privilege exception does not apply to the itemized billing statements in question.” “It is certainly possible that some of the attorney . . . time entries on these invoices might have included privileged communications from lawyer to client,” the brief says, “It is not the case, however, that all of them are privileged.” Dr. Bergano is being represented by L. Steven Emmert, a Virginia Beach appellate attorney. The Knight FOI Fund, administered by the National FOI Coalition, provided a grant to underwrite the costs of preparing and filing the brief. The brief is posted online at: https://www.opengovva.org/bergano-v-virginia-beach-amicus-brief

local, state & national news
A former Daily Progress photographer’s picture of a car slamming into a crowd of counter-protesters after the Aug. 12 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville has won the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for breaking news photographs. The photo, taken by Ryan Kelly on his last day at the paper, showed the car hitting the crowd and tossing people into the air. Judges gave Kelly the award “for a chilling image that reflected the photographer’s reflexes and concentration in capturing the moment of impact of a car attack during a racially charged protest in Charlottesville.” The Daily Progress Virginian-Pilot reporter Tim Eberly was named as a Pulitzer Prize finalist in the investigative reporting category Monday for his series on Virginia’s “three strikes” law, which denied the chance for parole to some felons. Eberly’s story, published in November, exposed a 1982 law that put inmates – many of them first-time, non-violent offenders – behind bars for longer than typical first-degree murder convicts. For decades, the state interpreted the law in a way that allowed inmates who committed three crimes in a single spree to become three-strikers. Less than a week after the story ran, the parole board announced that it was changing its interpretation of the three-strikes law. As a result, the board made two changes that could make more than 250 inmates eligible for parole. The Virginian-Pilot Abingdon Town Council voted unanimously to add an additional Freedom of Information Act officer for the town during a called meeting Monday. Councilman Bob Howard made a two-part motion to name Floyd Bailey, the town’s information technology officer, as an additional FOIA officer and to authorize the town FOIA officers to consult with the PennStuart law firm in Abingdon “as they deem necessary.” Bailey will join Town Attorney Deborah Icenhour, who is the current FOIA officer for the town. The meeting lasted a little more than an hour. Icenhour, Bailey, Town Manager Greg Kelly and Deputy Clerk Kim Kingsley were also present in the closed meeting for approximately 43 minutes. “We have a velocity of FOIA requests .... and we want to fill them as effectively and efficiently as possible,” Lowe told the Bristol Herald Courier on Monday. Bristol Herald Courier Judge Barry Willett did not render a decision Friday afternoon, but he made clear his suspicions. The Jefferson County (Kentucky) circuit court judge told attorneys for the University of Louisville he viewed the school's position regarding an open records request for documents justifying then-President James Ramsey’s decision to withhold the men’s basketball team from postseason play as “disingenuous,” as “hiding the ball,” as “intentionally making it as hard as possible” for a private citizen to access the documents of a public institution. Louisville Courier Journal On Thursday morning, Gary Berreth stepped outside of his house in the Green Meadows neighborhood and found an unexpected letter attached to his front door. The letter featured the Washington state seal and claimed to be from the Office of the Governor. It warned of "an adjustment in property taxes" due to the shutdown of an oil terminal and an agreement with BNSF to prohibit the shipping of oil, lumber and coal by rail through Vancouver. At the end of the letter was a carefully scrawled signature: "Jay Inslee," Washington's Democratic governor. CC'd on the letter were Clark County Assessor Peter Van Nortwick and Treasurer Doug Lasher. Berreth was correct in assuming the letter was a hoax. In an era of growing concerns of fake news spreading online, someone (or a group of people) has taken up a more old-fashioned approach to spreading misinformation. Governing	Judge tells attorneys for university that the school is “disingenuous,” “hiding the ball,” and “intentionally making it as hard as possible” to get records.

editorials & columns

"What is there about this precept of equality of speech that’s so bothersome to critics?"

What goes around comes around. Or to put it another way: Don’t do unto others what you don’t want done unto you. The disruption that attempted to override speakers at a Charlottesville City Council meeting earlier this month has been justified by some as perfectly reasonable, given the odious nature of that speech and the despicable conduct — prior to the meeting — of the speakers. We agree that the odious beliefs expressed by people such as Jason Kessler need to be vigorously challenged. But we disagree with the manner in which this opposition is expressed. We’ll say it because it needs to be said: The U.S. Constitution protects the right of free speech, with only some very narrow exceptions. We all have a right to say what’s on our minds in a public forum, according to constitutional principles and local rules implementing those principles. Here’s the thing: The rules and the Constitution must apply equally to everyone. What is there about this precept of equality that’s so bothersome to critics?
The Daily Progress

Categories:

Transparency News

2013 Virginia Coalition for Open Government