Transparency News 1/16/17
Monday, January 16, 2017
State and Local Stories
State and Local Stories
A proposed Virginia House of Delegates bill would institute recall elections in the commonwealth for the first time. Last year at least five elected official faced citizen actions to remove them from office. Citizens have mounted petition drives to remove a Prince William County School Board chairman, three members of the Bath County Board of Supervisors and Montgomery County Circuit Court Clerk Erica Williams. Those three cases, all of which under current law must be decided by a court, prompted Del. Rich Anderson, R-Prince William , to ponder the state’s process for removing elected officials. “Why is a judge making that determination?” Anderson said. “Judges don’t like to do this because they are hesitant to undo an election result. I want to put it in the people’s hands and not in the hands of the third branch of government.”
Roanoke Times
A significant number of court documents have been sealed in a now-settled federal lawsuit against a Newport News police officer who had been accused of wrongfully killing a man during a foot pursuit 18 months ago. The shielded documents include a June 2016 motion by the lawyer for Kawanza J. Beaty's estate to amend the lawsuit, as well as briefs by attorneys for the police officer, police chief and city responding to that request.
Daily Press
At least three Franklin County school board members were surprised to learn the school division had sent an information request to the board of supervisors under the state open-records law, which they viewed as an adversarial move. School Board Chairman G.B. Washburn directed district Superintendent Mark Church in December to send a request under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act for requirements documents and feasibility studies for other county projects. Not all school board members were aware that the request had been made. School board member Karen Hiltz, representing the Gills Creek District, said she took issue with the fact that the request was made without the knowledge of the full board, which according to Virginia code, acts as a body corporate.
Roanoke Times
Halifax County ED-8 School Board Trustee Walter Potts said Friday he has no idea how the 4-4 deadlock over electing a new school board chairman will be settled or how long that process may take. The split that came to light last week pits Potts, ED-4 Trustee Joe Gasperini, ED-1 Trustee Orey Hill and ED-5 Trustee Freddie Edmunds on one side, and ED-2 Trustee Karen Hopkins, ED-3 Trustee Kim Farson, ED-6 Trustee Fay Satterfield and ED-7 Trustee R. K. “Dick” Stoneman on the other side. “This board has been dysfunctional since last January, and you can print that because it’s true. We got along fine before then,” Satterfield was quoted as saying. “Why are you going to say because you didn’t have your way we are a dysfunctional board?” Potts asked on Friday morning.
Gazette-Virginian
Editorials/Columns
Just a couple months ago, the candidates for Leesburg Town Council asked the voters of Leesburg to trust them with their votes. In return, they pledged to bring transparency and new leadership to a dysfunctional, political council that masquerades as nonpartisan. Faced with its first tricky decision -- the naming of an interim Town Council member -- the newly elected council defaulted to a tactic employed by other disingenuous elected officials in Loudoun County: It closed the doors on the public so it could “openly” discuss the matter. Listen to newcomer Ron Campbell, elected to Town Council in November: “There was … consideration about going into closed session, which allows us to have some open and honest conversation – not to hide things from the public – but among ourselves the considerations that might allow a swing vote.” Or Kelly Burk, the new mayor of Virginia's largest town: "Closed sessions are not backroom deals. They are discussions that protect the honesty of the process." Closing the doors for open conversation. Closed sessions … “that protect the honesty of the process." The logic is as twisted as it is perverse.
Loudoun Times-Mirror
One of the striking things about the Daily Press's battle to open public access to the state court system's database of case records is how many Virginians seem to agree with us. We'll be before the Supreme Court of Virginia in April, fighting for all Virginians' right to see that database, even though, thanks to a civic-minded computer engineer, we have access to a copy of a portion of the database. With that, we've reported about apparent racial disparities in the courts and our limited successes cracking down on gun crimes. We thought you'd want to know things like that. Turns out, some legislators think we may have a point. Del. Marcus Simon, D-Falls Church, has sponsored a bill that says the database of the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia (OES) is indeed a public record that the public has a right to see, as we will argue to the Supreme Court itself in April. Del. Mike Mullin, D-Newport News, has signed on a chief co-sponsor.
Daily Press
If you’re like me, you might have done a double-take when reading the lead story in Wednesday’s paper by my colleagues Amy Friedenberger and Tiffany Stevens. The article noted there were 12 homicides in Roanoke in 2016. However, during the course of the year, Roanoke police had acknowledged only 10 of those to this newspaper. The story included this eyebrow-raising statement from Roanoke Police Chief Tim Jones: “There’s no reason we would or would not release it. No one asked, and we’re under no obligation to release that information.” In a legal sense, “no obligation” is correct. Unlike in many other states, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act imposes few obligations upon police to release anything about crime in a community. The law allows them to withhold almost everything. That’s an option, mind you, not a requirement. But considering that murder is the most serious crime imaginable and that there are only a dozen homicides, give or take, in the city each year, Jones’ statement came across as rather harsh. Violent crimes in a community are a public concern, after all.
Dan Casey, Roanoke Times
Virginians have a right to know what chemicals are being pumped into our communities. Just as important, first responders need this information to ensure public safety. This FOIA exemption would mean that companies would have the power to pick and choose which “trade secret” chemicals they would disclose and which they would keep secret from the public, regardless of risks to public health or the environment. This could cripple the ability of our emergency responders to plan how they would respond to an emergency at a drilling site in the community. Without FOIA, they have no way to learn which “trade secret” chemicals are being used. Instead, they must wait until an emergency is occurring — a fire, leaking well, or overflowing waste pit — before they can ask the drilling operator or Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME) which chemicals are in use. But past examples show us that this information is not quickly disclosed.
Ruby Brabo, Richmond Times-Dispatch
Last week, the day his term as Indiana’s 50th governor ended, Mike Pence got a going-away present from the Indiana Court of Appeals. But it came, thankfully, with some crucial qualifiers. A long-running legal battle over the governor’s decision to deny a 2014 open-records request was resolved in Pence’s favor by a three-judge panel. By a 2-1 vote, the court upheld a lower court’s ruling that Pence acted properly when he withheld some documents that had been sought by Indianapolis attorney William Groth under the Indiana Access to Public Records Act. The court agreed with Pence’s argument that the documents, which related to Indiana’s decision to join the state of Texas in a legal challenge to an immigration order by President Barack Obama, were legal working papers that were exempt from public disclosure.
Journal Gazette
Roanoke Times
A significant number of court documents have been sealed in a now-settled federal lawsuit against a Newport News police officer who had been accused of wrongfully killing a man during a foot pursuit 18 months ago. The shielded documents include a June 2016 motion by the lawyer for Kawanza J. Beaty's estate to amend the lawsuit, as well as briefs by attorneys for the police officer, police chief and city responding to that request.
Daily Press
At least three Franklin County school board members were surprised to learn the school division had sent an information request to the board of supervisors under the state open-records law, which they viewed as an adversarial move. School Board Chairman G.B. Washburn directed district Superintendent Mark Church in December to send a request under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act for requirements documents and feasibility studies for other county projects. Not all school board members were aware that the request had been made. School board member Karen Hiltz, representing the Gills Creek District, said she took issue with the fact that the request was made without the knowledge of the full board, which according to Virginia code, acts as a body corporate.
Roanoke Times
Halifax County ED-8 School Board Trustee Walter Potts said Friday he has no idea how the 4-4 deadlock over electing a new school board chairman will be settled or how long that process may take. The split that came to light last week pits Potts, ED-4 Trustee Joe Gasperini, ED-1 Trustee Orey Hill and ED-5 Trustee Freddie Edmunds on one side, and ED-2 Trustee Karen Hopkins, ED-3 Trustee Kim Farson, ED-6 Trustee Fay Satterfield and ED-7 Trustee R. K. “Dick” Stoneman on the other side. “This board has been dysfunctional since last January, and you can print that because it’s true. We got along fine before then,” Satterfield was quoted as saying. “Why are you going to say because you didn’t have your way we are a dysfunctional board?” Potts asked on Friday morning.
Gazette-Virginian
Editorials/Columns
Just a couple months ago, the candidates for Leesburg Town Council asked the voters of Leesburg to trust them with their votes. In return, they pledged to bring transparency and new leadership to a dysfunctional, political council that masquerades as nonpartisan. Faced with its first tricky decision -- the naming of an interim Town Council member -- the newly elected council defaulted to a tactic employed by other disingenuous elected officials in Loudoun County: It closed the doors on the public so it could “openly” discuss the matter. Listen to newcomer Ron Campbell, elected to Town Council in November: “There was … consideration about going into closed session, which allows us to have some open and honest conversation – not to hide things from the public – but among ourselves the considerations that might allow a swing vote.” Or Kelly Burk, the new mayor of Virginia's largest town: "Closed sessions are not backroom deals. They are discussions that protect the honesty of the process." Closing the doors for open conversation. Closed sessions … “that protect the honesty of the process." The logic is as twisted as it is perverse.
Loudoun Times-Mirror
One of the striking things about the Daily Press's battle to open public access to the state court system's database of case records is how many Virginians seem to agree with us. We'll be before the Supreme Court of Virginia in April, fighting for all Virginians' right to see that database, even though, thanks to a civic-minded computer engineer, we have access to a copy of a portion of the database. With that, we've reported about apparent racial disparities in the courts and our limited successes cracking down on gun crimes. We thought you'd want to know things like that. Turns out, some legislators think we may have a point. Del. Marcus Simon, D-Falls Church, has sponsored a bill that says the database of the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia (OES) is indeed a public record that the public has a right to see, as we will argue to the Supreme Court itself in April. Del. Mike Mullin, D-Newport News, has signed on a chief co-sponsor.
Daily Press
If you’re like me, you might have done a double-take when reading the lead story in Wednesday’s paper by my colleagues Amy Friedenberger and Tiffany Stevens. The article noted there were 12 homicides in Roanoke in 2016. However, during the course of the year, Roanoke police had acknowledged only 10 of those to this newspaper. The story included this eyebrow-raising statement from Roanoke Police Chief Tim Jones: “There’s no reason we would or would not release it. No one asked, and we’re under no obligation to release that information.” In a legal sense, “no obligation” is correct. Unlike in many other states, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act imposes few obligations upon police to release anything about crime in a community. The law allows them to withhold almost everything. That’s an option, mind you, not a requirement. But considering that murder is the most serious crime imaginable and that there are only a dozen homicides, give or take, in the city each year, Jones’ statement came across as rather harsh. Violent crimes in a community are a public concern, after all.
Dan Casey, Roanoke Times
Virginians have a right to know what chemicals are being pumped into our communities. Just as important, first responders need this information to ensure public safety. This FOIA exemption would mean that companies would have the power to pick and choose which “trade secret” chemicals they would disclose and which they would keep secret from the public, regardless of risks to public health or the environment. This could cripple the ability of our emergency responders to plan how they would respond to an emergency at a drilling site in the community. Without FOIA, they have no way to learn which “trade secret” chemicals are being used. Instead, they must wait until an emergency is occurring — a fire, leaking well, or overflowing waste pit — before they can ask the drilling operator or Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME) which chemicals are in use. But past examples show us that this information is not quickly disclosed.
Ruby Brabo, Richmond Times-Dispatch
Last week, the day his term as Indiana’s 50th governor ended, Mike Pence got a going-away present from the Indiana Court of Appeals. But it came, thankfully, with some crucial qualifiers. A long-running legal battle over the governor’s decision to deny a 2014 open-records request was resolved in Pence’s favor by a three-judge panel. By a 2-1 vote, the court upheld a lower court’s ruling that Pence acted properly when he withheld some documents that had been sought by Indianapolis attorney William Groth under the Indiana Access to Public Records Act. The court agreed with Pence’s argument that the documents, which related to Indiana’s decision to join the state of Texas in a legal challenge to an immigration order by President Barack Obama, were legal working papers that were exempt from public disclosure.
Journal Gazette
Categories:
