Remedies, Enforcement and Procedures

The chief judge of the Norfolk Circuit Court ruled the Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads (HRT) did not have the duty to search employees' personal phones, nor did it have the authority to compel the employees to turn their phones over, in response to a FOIA request for text messages about public business that might be on the phones. The judge also allowed HRT to initiate this action under the Declaratory Judgment Act.

The Court of Appeals rules that a city/town invoking the working papers and correspondence exemption (in particular, the correspondence part), cannot invoke it on behalf of both the city/town mayor AND the city/town manager (or other executive officer). The city/town must choose between the two. The court also says that the method by which Warrenton selected records for the judge to look at privately to determine if the exemption for working papers applied was inadequate. The trial judge should have required the town to prepare a federal-like Vaughn Index or to pick records randomly or representatively. Whichever method, the main this is that the government has to explain to the judge and other party why and how these records were chosen. Case is remanded for new sampling.

FOIA does not require a public body to charge a requester at all, but if charges are assessed, FOIA provides that a public body may only do so within the stated limitations. A public body may assess charges for the production of requested records which includes the hourly rate of pay for the staff that researched and responded to the request and cost of copies. Charges must be limited specifically to the actual cost to a public body for accessing, duplicating, supplying, or searching for the requested records. FOIA requires that a public body make all reasonable efforts to supply the requested records at the lowest possible cost. Fees for fringe benefits are a general cost associated with transacting the general business of the public body. Any extraneous, intermediary, or surplus fees or expenses to recoup the general costs associated with creating or maintaining records or transacting the general business of the public body is not allowed under FOIA. There is the expectation of a "good faith" effort by public officials, employees, and staff members to conduct a search for records in responding to FOIA requests. FOIA does not require any public body's officials, employees, or staff members to recuse themselves from a records request. It is the responsibility of these officials, employees, and staff members trained in the requirements and provisions of FOIA to understand how to respond to requests in accordance with the law on behalf of the public bodies they serve.
 

Public Subsection D of § 15.2-2907 exempts the Commission on Local Government and certain meetings from FOIA, but does not otherwise address access to public records under FOIA. Also discussed the attorney-client privilege exemption, delivery methods and remedies available under FOIA.

Loudoun County General District Court Judge Matthew Snow rules the town violated FOIA when it required a deposit of $115 (FOIA says a deposit can be requested for amounts over $200) and when the requester said she was going to ask the FOIA Council for its opinion, the town said it considered such an action a "threat" and would not process any more of the citizen's requests. (Plus, additional issues on redactions, post-litigation production of records, reasonableness of FOIA charges and attorney fees.)

A Rappahannock County circuit judge ruled the board of supervisors there improperly closed a meeting to talk about an advertisement seeking a replacement for an outgoing county attorney as well as alternatives to the county attorney set-up. The topic was not "legal advice," nor did it fall under the personnel exemption for "prospective candidates for employment."

The exemption in subdivision 13 of § 2.2-3705.1 applies to certain account numbers and routing information, but does not address the names of credit card holders. The expedited hearing provisions in § 2.2-3713 apply regardless of whether a petition is filed in general district court or circuit court. Only a court may rule on evidentiary matters.

Discusses general open meetings requirements of public bodies and their committees as well as obligations of public bodies in response to a request for public records. A public body is not required to record open meetings itself but must afford the public the opportunity to record the meetings. A committee of a public body is not required to record minutes of an open meeting if the committee membership is comprised of less than a majority of the public body membership. While a public body must post a link on its website to any routine exemption policy for records, there is no requirement as to how that policy is formed or that the policy be contained in a physical policy document. A public body must state in writing the reasons why public records are not provided in response to a request for public records.

In a case brought against the City of Norfolk alleging violations of FOIA's response times and fee estimates, a Norfolk Circuit Court gives much deference to FOIA Council prior opinions and finds:

A motion to convene a closed meeting that contains a general reference to the subject matter to be discussed does not satisfy the requirement to identify the subject. If a member feels that a closed meeting discussion strays beyond the matters identified in the motion to convene, that member shall make a statement to that effect to be included in the minutes before the public body votes to certify the closed meeting. In such a situation, it is expected that the member who feels that the discussion strayed will vote against the motion to certify when the vote is called. Further, if the motion to convene a closed meeting purports to discuss a subject (or subjects) but the actual discussion is of some other topic not addressed in the motion, that would be a violation of FOIA.