Thursday afternoon, a House subcommittee is set to hear three FOIA bills, two of which we oppose and one of which we would like sent to the FOIA Council (in whole or in part). Can you help us?
SB202 (by Sen. Richard Stuart) would say that only those public employee salaries over twice the federal minimum wage (which is now at just over $30,000) have to be released. Current law says that salaries of those making $10,000 more. So a whole swatch of salaries that have been available would be exempt from mandatory disclosure under this bill. That’s a whole lot of wiggle room for payrolls to be padded with friends, families and favors.
The bill also says salary and name together cannot be made available on a “publicly accessible database.” This part is aimed at the Richmond Times-Dispatch’s database of state public employees, but is written so vaguely and broadly that it could be read as including a list of school administrators’ salaries on someone’s Facebook page. Click here for talking points.
SB552 (by Sen. John Cosgrove) would say that the names and training records of law enforcement officers (defined broadly to include fire marshals, ABC agents, marine police and animal control officers) are personnel records that can be withheld from disclosure. The NAMES of officers, meaning no individual accountability for police policy or spending, not to mention questionable individual actions (ABC agents arresting students for buying sparkling water, for example). Click here for talking points.
SB645 (by Sen. Jeremy McPike) expands the current exemption for critical infrastructure records (things like bridge and utility security plans). The bill is very awkwardly worded, but we don’t oppose the concept. What we DO oppose — and would like removed from the bill and sent to the FOIA Council — is a mechanism allowing third parties (like Dominion or a security vendor) to object to a government decision to release records under the exemption. The procedure would drag out decisions by 21 days or more (some of the timelines are vague) and would allow a balancing test of the reason for the request which has NEVER been used in FOIA before. Click here for talking points.
So, please contact the House subcommittee members before Thursday (see below). Better yet, come to the General Assembly Building Thursday afternoon and tell them so IN PERSON!
Contact information on subcommittee members Jim LeMunyon, Richard Anderson, Roxann Robinson, Jospeph Yost, Randy Minchew, Jeion Ward and Betsy Carr found here.
State and Local Stories
The debate still rages across the country: When, and even if, police should release video footage of critical incidents. Though body-worn cameras are the hot topic now, private surveillance camera footage from parking lots and office buildings are also in the conversation. After only four days, Cleveland police in 2014 released the surveillance video of an officer killing 12-year-old Tamir Rice, saying they were “honoring the wishes of the family in releasing this and also in the spirit of being open and fair with our community.” That did not exactly cool civic outrage. On the other hand, Fairfax County, Va., took 5 1/2 years to release the dash-cam footage of the officer who killed unarmed motorist David Masters on Route 1 in 2009. There is no consensus on how to deal with the footage. Part of the problem is there are so many different entities with a hand in deciding what to do with the footage. Police departments, city councils, county and state legislatures, and police unions all want to have a say in the policy. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press calls it “the Wild West of open records requests” for anyone trying to figure out where to go and what the rules are on obtaining police video. Some cities, such as Boston and Seattle, are working to respond promptly to video requests. But in California a bill is pending to exempt all body-camera video from release. One town in Florida demanded $18,000 in response to a request for 84 hours of video. In Virginia, police may at their discretion withhold any investigative materials forever. The Reporters Committee is tracking various laws and policies here.
Washington Post
Montgomery County supervisors voted along party lines Monday to cut $20,700 from Circuit Court Clerk Erica Williams’ salary. Williams, a Democrat, has been criticized for weeks by Republican supervisors for declining to reappoint four of her nine deputy clerks after she was re-elected last year. A fifth deputy clerk refused reappointment. Board Chair Chris Tuck walked supervisors through a slide presentation that showed good job evaluations for some of the dismissed deputy clerks, information that he said the former employees had shared with him. He also shared data on another criticism of Williams, that she did not spend enough time in the courthouse. Tuck put up a slide showing that records from the card Williams had to swipe to get in and out of her office door showed she’d worked nearly 87 hours in October, about 78 hours in November and almost 93 hours in December. He repeated a statement he’d made at a meeting two weeks ago, that he talked to Williams two years ago about her hours and told her she “could be clerk for life” if she’d come to the office every day. Last year, Williams’ Republican opponent, Susan Richardson, sought to document Williams’ comings and goings with information from the clerk’s swipe card but the county declined to release it, citing security concerns. County spokeswoman Ruth Richey said after Monday’s meeting that the security concerns didn’t apply to Tuck’s presentation since he gave only total hours in the courthouse, rather than specific times that Williams entered and left.
Roanoke Times
The Virginia State Police denied a Freedom of Information Act request filed by The Star seeking 911 call information and any dashcam and body camera footage related to an officer-involved shooting. On Feb. 17, state police spokeswoman Corinne Geller responded to the request via email, citing a section of Virginia Code. Any videos and other documentation associated with the shooting, Geller wrote, are part of an ongoing criminal investigation.
Winchester Star
National Stories
The police in Houston, the nation’s fourth-largest city, found themselves on the defensive after a series of articles by The Houston Chronicle two years ago detailed a pattern of questionable shootings. The numbers have remained grim, according to police and court records obtained through an open records law request and documents recently made available as part of lawsuits filed against the Police Department. Despite the troubling statistics, the Houston police have largely avoided the intensive public scrutiny directed in recent months at other large departments, including those in Chicago, Baltimore and Philadelphia. The reason, critics say, has been the lack of videotapes capturing the most questionable shootings of unarmed civilians. Without videotaped evidence to contradict police accounts, shootings are far less likely to galvanize the public and to result in disciplinary action against the officers involved, criminologists say.
New York Times
If an agenda for a special city council meeting doesn’t say that members will vote on something, are they allowed to vote anyway? It’s a question that South Carolina’s highest court will answer in the coming weeks as part of one man’s bid to show that the Mount Pleasant Town Council skirted open-government laws in 2008 by hiding contentious decisions behind incomplete agendas. In a series of special meetings that included executive sessions on the topic, town leaders pushed through a Shem Creek land deal that cost taxpayers $6 million for a tract worth half that. A ruling in favor of Steve Brock, the former TV station executive and planning commission member who sued the town, could further define the S.C. Freedom of Information Act by saying that governing bodies statewide must give advance notice of all anticipated actions at special meetings, even when they occur after executive sessions.
The Post and Courier
Editorials/Columns
A new poll from Christopher Newport University found that more than 66 percent of Virginians think last year's ethics reform went far enough — with 71 percent of those polled calling the current rules "satisfactory." Politicians should not read this the wrong way. If 71 percent believe ethics reform has gone far enough, it doesn't follow that they think it's gone too far. Beyond that, politicians must lead on ethics reform. Since most time-pressed voters aren't involved in the shady backscratching in our government, it's understandable that ethics reform isn't at the forefront of their minds. Of course voters will be more exercised on the heated issues of the day, such as gun control, abortion and immigration, or such pocketbook issues as taxes and jobs. We are also a republic, not a straight democracy. Our elected representatives are supposed to make thoughtful decisions after deliberation, not be driven by the latest poll or focus group. In the end, ensuring that our government takes ethics seriously will lead to better decision-making and reflect well on our state. Politicians who interpret the recent CNU poll to think people don't care about government ethics — and that The Virginia Way of doing business is just fine — should think again.
Daily Press
It took a while, but the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library finally arrived at a new policy on public displays that should reduce openings for controversies such as the one that erupted last year over a graphic display near the front door of the downtown facility. At least one display case will be set aside as a Freedom of Speech exhibit. It will be located in an adult area and will be at least 20 feet from the door through which all patrons must pass. Meanwhile, the board is loosening its rules for content. No longer must displays be both age appropriate and balanced in their presentation of content.
Daily Progress