Mayor Danny Avula’s administration on Tuesday released documents that outline how officials improperly used public dollars to fund local nonprofits during fiscal year 2023. The records reveal the names of some of the organizations that received non-departmental grant funding awards despite being ruled ineligible for them. A February report published by the Office of the City Auditor found that multiple organizations received grant funding despite scoring lower than a 75 in their initial reviews. The report also determined that city staff had prioritized organizations that had been awarded grant funds in prior years. Auditors additionally found that some nonprofits received funding despite submitting applications after the deadline. Because the application dates are not listed in the spreadsheets, The Times-Dispatch was not able to identify those organizations. And because the names of the officials who conducted the preliminary nonprofit reviews and assigned the grades were redacted, it was not immediately possible to determine whether conflicts of interest occurred. The disclosure is a partial reversal from the administration’s prior decision to invoke the working papers exemption to Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act. The exemption was initially cited by officials to justify withholding the documents from both The Times-Dispatch and members of Richmond’s City Council.

In a long-awaited opinion, the Second Circuit ruled in favor of media groups in Vermont that challenged a local policy of withholding access to new cases as they came into the courthouse. The new cases are a traditional source of news, especially in current times, because they represent the latest controversies and disputes coming into court for resolution. The Vermont Press Association and other publishers fought a Vermont policy that blacks out new complaints when they first arrive. The resulting delays, while clerks handle clerical duties, turn the cases into old news before they can be reported in the media. A majority on the Second Circuit appellate panel affirmed a 2021 decision by U.S. Judge Christina Reiss who found Vermont’s policy violates the First Amendment right of access. The majority also remanded the case for reconsideration of an injunction, saying it was too broad.

In the year 2015, we witnessed the launch of OpenAI, a debate over the color of a dress going viral, and a Supreme Court decision that same-sex couples have the right to get married. It was also the year that the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) first published The Foilies, an annual report that hands out tongue-in-cheek “awards” to government agencies and officials that respond outrageously when a member of the public tries to access public records through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or similar laws. A lot has changed over the last decade, but one thing that hasn’t is the steady flow of attempts by authorities to avoid their legal and ethical obligations to be open and accountable. Sometimes, these cases are intentional, but just as often, they are due to incompetence or straight-up half-assedness. This year, we reflect on the most absurd and frustrating winners from the last 10 years as we prepare for the next decade, which may even be more terrible for government transparency.