Since the August 2005 newsletter, the FOI Advisory Council issued just four formal, written opinions.
Reaffirming its revised opinion on access to accident reports containing information about juveniles, the council in AO-08-05 told the public relations director for the Department of State Police that other than information falling under §2.2-3706(C) of the Freedom of Information Act, the rules for disclosure are the same for both juveniles and adults. The month before, the council rescinded an earlier opinion that said accident reports containing information about juveniles — whether as victims or as possible criminal suspects — had to be withheld under FOIA.
In AO-09-05, the council weighed in on the dispute between Richmond Mayor Doug Wilder and the board of the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation. Andrew Beaujon, a local music writer (and co-recipient with Don Harrison of the Coalition’s citizen FOI award), asked the council whether the VPAF could ignore his FOIA request for financial records on the ground that the organization was not a public body.
Sticking by its general formula that to be a public body, that is, one supported wholly or principally by public funds, roughly two-thirds of its budget (exclusive of grants) must come from public sources. As the foundation’s income sources were partly at issue, and also involved squishy numbers on money pledged versus money received to date, the council stated that the office lacked the financial expertise to fully determine VPAF’s status as a public body.
The council also held the presence of two members of another public body (Richmond City Council) on the VPAF board did not automatically convert the board into a public body.
The council had an easier time determining that a “special study group” of citizen members appointed by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors was a public body subject to FOIA. In AO-10-05, the council said the study group was a public body because it had been delegated authority by the supervisors to make recommendations to the board and the planning commission on various issues.
Also in that opinion, the court reiterated that public bodies may place restrictions on the use and placement of recording equipment during meetings, but they cannot ban recording altogether.
In another opinion, the council reconsidered a situation first presented to it in June 2004. In that opinion, the council said that a meeting of a committee of the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors and the Chesterfield County School Board was not a meeting subject to FOIA because the respective public bodies did not designate its own members to be members of the committee.
In AO-11-05, the council weighed new facts on the committee, noting that each entity had its own “Liaison Committee,” and members of those committees made up the larger committee in question. The council pointed out that if more than two members (or a quorum) of the school board’s Liaison Committee (or the board of supervisors’ Liaison Committee) were present at the joint meeting, the meeting should have been made known to the public.