0 1 . 2 0 . 2 6
All Access
There are no news articles this morning, but later today, a House subcommittee will be hearing a couple of FOIA bills, including one that VCOG asked Del. Simon to carry for us: HB 159.
Why this bill came about
Some general district court judges (including in Stafford, Covington and Richmond) have dismissed FOIA enforcement petitions filed by ordinary citizens, not because the claims lacked merit, but because the filer did not “serve process” through the sheriff or a private process server. Such a requirement is not found in the plain text of FOIA.
What HB 159 does
HB 159 clarifies what the General Assembly has already said: FOIA enforcement actions in general district court do not require formal service of process.
Why This Fix Is Needed
1. FOIA requires receipt, not service
Current law (§ 2.2-3713(C)) requires only that the public body “receive a copy” of the petition before a hearing. The statute never uses the words service, process, or summons. When the FOIA Council recommended the current language, it explicitly rejected the term “served,” with council members (including local government attorneys) agreeing that requiring service by a sheriff or process server would unnecessarily delay FOIA enforcement.
2. Service-of-process requirements defeat FOIA’s purpose
FOIA is designed to be enforced by non-lawyers, quickly and at low cost. Requiring formal service adds costs, causes delays and creates procedural traps for inexperienced pro se filers. These hurdles discourage citizens from enforcing their rights and allow FOIA violations to go unchallenged.s
The Bottom Line
HB 159 doesn’t change the law’s substance—it ensures courts apply it as intended, so technicalities don’t override transparency.
If you want to contact a member of the subcommittee or offer oral or written comments, go to the subcommittee home page.
To follow HB 159 and the other bills we’re following, our bill chart is up and running
and will be updated each night throughout the legislative session.
Click here
|
