Note: The governor vetored HB 2039, which would have directed the FOIA Council and law enforcement representatives to come up with standard models for use of encrypted radio communication, presumably to leave some feeds available to the public.

Gov. Glenn Youngkin late Monday asked lawmakers to delay implementation of a 2021 law to shield tens of thousands of court records from public view. The law, set to go into effect on July 1 after four years of planning, would block access to criminal and court records of certain past crimes so long as defendants have paid their restitution and gone certain time periods without committing more crimes. Lawmakers in the recent legislative session amended the law to delay its implementation by six months, saying the sealing should begin Jan. 1.

Legislation that would shield thousands of past court cases from public view could violate the First Amendment’s right of access to judicial records, according to two Virginia attorneys who handle media cases. Blocking information about what happened in court — even if the case ended years ago and the hearing was public — is a recipe for creating distrust of the judicial system, these lawyers maintain. Access to court records, they said, helps outside observers decide whether they think the process was fair and the outcome correct, and whether defendants were unfairly targeted or protected. “Openness is how the judiciary gets its legitimacy,” said David B. Lacy, an attorney with the Richmond firm Christian & Barton. “The problem with sealing is you’re inviting cynicism about the judicial process and inviting people to speculate about what’s going on.”

The Court of Appeals for Virginia rules that VDOT could assert an exemption for the first time on appeal because the exemption contained a prohibition against release of specific information; it was an ‘other law’ that prohibited release. The exemption at issue is 2.2-3705.3(7): ““Investigative notes, correspondence and information furnished in confidence, and records otherwise exempted by [VFOIA] or any Virginia statute, provided to or produced by or for . . . internal auditors appointed by the head of a state agency.”

Martinsville’s Tuesday night city council regular session ended with pointed comments between council members and resulted in Councilor Aaron Rawls’ removal by a deputy. Much of Tuesday’s packed city council meeting proceeded without incident until near the end of the meeting when councilors are encouraged to provide comment. Rawls used his time to address recent concerns expressed by some members of the council. Rawls cited taxes and utility bills for what he said was the growing cost of living negatively impacting residents. “And now we’re talking about raising executive pay in the city of Martinsville, with your money,” Rawls said, alluding to the previous week’s closed session in which councilors discussed Ferrell-Benavides’ contract. Were people aware, he asked, that she was making “almost two hundred thousand dollars a year in the city of Martinsville?” Mayor L.C. Jones told Rawls to “fall in order.” Rawls said he couldn’t hear what the mayor was saying and attempted to continue before Jones chose to move on to Council member Julian Mei’s comments. A deputy approached Rawls and placed her hands on his arms after he did not immediately get up. Rawls gathered some of his things and left quietly.

After a tumultuous three months following a change in Purcellville’s leadership, a group of town residents Tuesday night announced an effort to recall Mayor Christopher Bertaut, Vice Mayor Ben Nett and council members Susan Khalil and Carol Luke. The announcement was made during the Town Council meeting by longtime resident Brian Morgan who said there are four main reasons he is leading the effort. The first is alleged Freedom of Information Act violations amid concerns by residents that meetings between more than two council members are taking place, communicating via encrypted group chat apps, and are avoiding FOIA requests.