Transparency News 2/12/15
State and Local Stories
Richmond officials have released confidentiality agreements signed by several city leaders vowing secrecy about “highly sensitive” information related to the departure of former Chief Administrative Officer Byron C. Marshall. The documents were at the center of a legal battle after former Richmond School Board member Carol A.O. Wolf cited the Freedom of Information Act in requesting the names of those who signed the agreements. In part, the confidentiality agreement states: “The Official agrees that he/she shall not disclose to anyone, except as required by court order, subpoena, or law: (a) the contents, subject matter, or existence of any conversation between the Official and the Mayor’s office regarding the highly sensitive information related to the complex personnel matter; (b) to the fact that this Agreement exist; (c) the terms of this Agreement; and (d) the facts and circumstances giving rise to this agreement.”
Times-Dispatch
Ethics reform? We don’t need no stinking ethics reform. That about sums up the sentiment of an hour-long debate in the Virginia Senate yesterday—well, until lawmakers passed an omnibus bill of anti-corruption measures by a margin of 35 to 1, that is. So if they didn’t like the legislation, why vote for it? It’s the media, stupid. We [CJR] thought you might want to hear it directly from the senators, though, so here’s a brief montage of some of the floor speeches Tuesday in which these lawmakers blame the media (thanks to the Senate clerk’s office and Information Services for making the video available).
Columbia Journalism Review
Victories that proponents of bipartisan redistricting reform won in the Virginia Senate this session likely will be short-lived. Two of their bills are up before a House subcommittee at 7 a.m. Thursday and House leaders have made it clear they're not interested in changing the way Virginia draws its election lines. Asked Wednesday whether there was any chance for such a change this year, House Appropriations Chairman S. Chris Jones, standing before nearly half of the membership of the House Republican majority, answered simply. "No," he said.
Daily Press
Hanover County residents, or anyone with an Internet connection, will be able to live-stream or listen to Board of Supervisors meetings by the fall. The board on Wednesday approved $22,500 for installation of the technology and for purchases of camera equipment and hardware. The transfer from the reserve fund for video streaming of meetings is in addition to $20,000 annually approved in December for board meeting management software through the company Granicus, which is also used by Chesterfield County, Henrico County and the town of Ashland. Hanover supervisors hope the video streaming and online management of archived agendas and minutes will increase transparency in government for constituents unable to attend meetings. Chesterfield reported the highest average monthly participation at 400, according to a presentation by Hanover deputy county administrator John A. Budesky. Then-chairman Sean Davis of the Henry district initiated a staff study of surrounding counties' use of video streaming in October.
Times-Dispatch
National Stories
When Maryland adopted its public information policy 45 years ago, email hadn’t been invented yet, commercial laser printers were being refined for the market and the ink on the federal Freedom of Information Act was barely dry. On Tuesday open government advocates began their push to update the Maryland Public Information Act of 1970. “Democracy is built on transparency,” said Sen. Jamie Raskin, D-Montgomery County, who is sponsoring the bill. “We’ve got a good law but it hasn’t been updated in four decades.” The bill would establish a governor-appointed compliance board to review and resolve public records complaints. The board could order records to be released, reduce fees and make recommendations to the governor and General Assembly. At least one member of the board would represent a non-governmental, nonprofit group, while another member must be a part of the Maryland State Bar Association.Washington Times
If you’ve been remiss in cleaning out your email in-box, here’s some incentive: The federal government can read any emails that are more than six months old without a warrant.Little known to most Americans, ambiguous language in a communications law passed in 1986 extends Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure only to electronic communications sent or received fewer than 180 days ago. The language, known as the “180-day rule,” allows government officials to treat any emails, text messages or documents stored on remote servers – popularly known as the cloud – as “abandoned” and therefore accessible using administrative subpoena power, a tactic that critics say circumvents due process. As you rush to purge your Gmail and Dropbox accounts, however, be forewarned that even deleted files still could be fair game as long as copies exist on a third-party server somewhere.
McClatchy
Editorials/Columns
The General Assembly is taking welcome steps forward regarding ethics reform. It also is stumbling. Legislation reduces the cap on gifts from $250 to $100, and erases the dubious distinction between tangible and intangible gifts, described by The Times-Dispatch’s Markus Schmidt as “travel, meals and entertainment.” Both moves deserve applause. The ethics package does not create an independent commission to investigate questions related to ethics and to enforce rules governing conduct. The move deserves a jeer. An independent advisory panel does not go far enough.Times-Dispatch
The sequel to the General Assembly's 2014 theatrical performance over ethics reform opened this week, with lawmakers reprising familiar complaints and showing righteous indignation before begrudgingly approving new bills.
Virginian-Pilot
One day in early in January, a wealthy fox climbed the front stoop at a chicken farmer’s house and rapped on the door. The farmer opened it and saw the critter standing there. “Yes?” he asked with a smile. “These past few months I’ve been keeping an eye on your henhouse,” the fox said. “Your watchdog isn’t doing that great of a job. I can help.” The farmer paused. “Are you serious?” he asked. “Why are you suddenly so interested in my coop’s security?” The fox shivered. “It’s kind of cold out here,” he said. “Aren’t you going to invite me in so we can discuss it? Have you forgotten all the donations I’ve made to this farm since 2009?” So the farmer stepped aside, pulled the door open and the fox trundled in. If the scenario above sounds improbable, consider what’s happening right now in the Virginia General Assembly. It revolves around Dominion Resources, the commonwealth’s biggest electric utility.
Dan Casey, Roanoke Times
You’d think it might get the attention of our state legislators, as well, if not on the merits, then because of the possibility that if they vote for it, come re-election time, their opponent could rightly claim: “Delegate Flugelhorn voted to cancel your refund; now it’s time to cancel Delegate Flugelhorn.” Except, oh, that’s right, we forgot: Because of gerrymandering, most legislators won’t face any real competition. They do, however, get lots of money from the utilities. Dominion is typically the biggest campaign contributor in the state — giving out $800,000 in the most recent cycle, along with $52,000 for lobbying, i.e, the wining and dining of legislators. One is tempted to say that the bill’s sponsor, state Sen. Frank Wagner, R-Virginia Beach, ought to be more properly styled as R-Dominion Resources. (Some of you may recognize him as the same legislator who sponsored the bill that gives natural gas companies the right to walk over your land to survey for a pipeline even before the “public need” is established.) Wagner also owned $10,000 to $50,000 worth of Dominion stock until last week; he sold it, he said, so it wouldn’t look like he would benefit from the legislation. Some wish he’d have kept his stock and gotten rid of the bill.
Roanoke Times
Our concerns are more about local municipal and elected official websites. Most of them aren't user-friendly. Augusta County has a visible meeting calendar, but sometimes we have found agendas not posted 48 hours before a meeting and agendas not downloadable on Google Chrome. According one page of the website, citizens can't pay any county bills online. Another page gives directions for doing so. Waynesboro has an easy-to-find municipal calendar and agendas and minutes section. Staunton posts detailed meeting agendas, but they are several clicks from the homepage. If there's a published calendar for council and commission meetings, it's hidden deep in the website bowels. The site's geographic information system is strong. Most local officials who have websites do not address specific votes on their websites. It's simple 21st century communication: Representatives, put your votes on the Web for all to see and back up the key ones with sound explanation. Stay open to phone calls and personal meetings, but in truth know that more and more constituents are engaging via the Web.
News Leader
The official position of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors on the need for changes in policy after the shooting of John Geer by police in Springfield in August of 2013 appears to be that this is the first time police policies have been a problem: “Policies for handling police-involved incidents, which served us well for decades, were inadequate in this complicated situation.” Police-involved shootings have resulted in excruciating obfuscation and delay by Fairfax County Police dating back more than a decade. In this editorial, we refer to two high-profile cases, but these are not the only cases where police secrecy had caused incalculable pain to families while damaging the credibility of the police and other county officials. And this issue is not limited to Fairfax County. Alexandria and Arlington use similar approaches to limit public access to information. Most Northern Virginia residents think very highly of their police. We are very safe here. People understand that sometimes mistakes happen, that sometimes force is needed, and that sometimes police will exercise deadly force. What they are unlikely to accept is secrecy that shrouds mistakes, and failure to take responsibility for explaining events of deadly force.
Connection Newspapers
[Tuesday] was one of the most dispiriting days in the history of the General Assembly. That’s unusual because Capitol Square is usually an ebullient place, where advocates, lobbyists, lawmakers, Governors and other assorted crackpots mingle freely.The Senate ethics bill is a 110-page leviathan, which is about one hundred times longer than it needs to be. Within its dense prose, it prohibits gifts or benefits to lawmakers with a value of over $100 and also requires lawmakers to disclose all sources of income and the income received – which should make for some interesting data. Really all it needs to say is — “No one shall give or receive gifts intended to influence a public official in his official capacity. A gift over $100 from a person with business before the state is presumed to be unlawful.” Having said all that, the official belly-aching about the bill was a bit much. We asked for this duty. Going in, we knew the salary ($18,000) and the office allowance ($15,000) and we also knew the level of public scrutiny. We do it anyway, and if we didn’t — somebody else we be right there. John Watkins (R-Chesterfield), one of the most respected voices in the Senate, made the point that the best and brightest won’t seek public office with these types of mandatory disclosures. But who said they’re seeking it now?
Sen. Chap Petersen, Ox Road South
