Roanoke City Circuit Court has ruled in favor of Cardinal News Executive Editor Jeff Schwaner in a declaratory judgment to be filed in Roanoke City Circuit Court. In an April 14 letter to attorneys previewing the ruling, Judge Leisa Ciaffone finds the city of Roanoke in violation of the Freedom of Information Act and requires them to fulfill a renewed request for Flock footage of Schwaner’s vehicle. The ruling dismisses all the arguments made by the city for not fulfilling the FOIA request. “The court finds that Mr. Schwaner has substantially prevailed on the merits and grants his reasonable attorney’s fees and costs associated with this action.” While the judge’s ruling was narrow … it did conclude that LPR data in the Flock system is covered by FOIA and therefore subject to request under the act.

Speaking during City Council’s April 14 public comment period, Egon Shroud invoked J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter. “When he who shall not be named walked through (Westover Hills Elementary School) earlier this year, he learned … our staff work hard to get kids reading,” said Shroud, a Richmond Public Schools teacher arguing for higher pay for herself and her colleagues. By “he who must not be named” — the alias for Rowling’s infamous villain, Voldemort — Shroud meant Mayor Danny Avula. But she couldn’t say that due to City Council’s rules of procedure, which City Council President Cynthia Newbille claims prohibit members of the public from referencing public officials when giving their remarks. It’s an interpretation of the rules that arguably violates Richmond residents’ right to free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, said Kevin Cope, an associate professor of law at the University of Virginia.
NOTE: There’s also a 2016 Attorney General opinion that says, “[T]he blanket prohibitions in the Rules against speech on “specific personnel or student conerns” and speech identifying school officials or employees may not constitutionally be applied so as to bar speakers from discussing specific school employees or officials during open meetings.” It also said prohibitions against all “personal attacks” aren’t constitutional.
https://opengovva.org/foi-opinions/attorney-general-opinion-15-020morris/

Warren County received one bid to provide library services through its recent Request for Proposal (RFP), said County Administrator Edwin Daley on Wednesday. The deadline for submissions was Monday. The Warren County Library Board (WCLB) met in closed session Monday evening to discuss the proposal. According to the Board of Supervisors’ upcoming meeting agenda for Tuesday, WCLB member Dean Jaques is scheduled to address supervisors to seek authorization to negotiate a contract for library services. Details of the proposal were unavailable. Kimberly Henry, buyer for the county, said in a Wednesday email that, per the Code of Virginia, “since this solicitation is open, we can’t release the information. Only after award can this information become public.”

While the spirit of [FOIA] should be foremost in the minds of those who serve the public, the letter of the law affirms compliance. Officials who flout the state’s open government law do so knowing it is antithetical to democratic governance — a betrayal of their constituents — as well as being in violation of a statute that demands decisions be made with ample advance notice so citizens can participate in the process. We mention all of that because it seems some local elected officials in Hampton Roads could use the refresher. The Virginia Beach City School Board voted on April 8 to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs from the city’s school system. Prior to that vote, the board released an agenda for the board meeting that had no mention of the issue, then introduced a resolution about it during the meeting, and held a vote to remove DEI programs. Last month, the Norfolk City Council voted on a resolution instructing the city’s school board to create a plan by Aug. 1 to close 10 schools. Again, this represents a sweeping and consequential policy affecting thousands of students, teachers, staff and residents. And again, elected officials failed to follow the law under Virginia’s FOIA. The resolution didn’t appear on the council’s agenda for its March 25 meeting.

In December of 2023, I submitted a FOIA request to Portsmouth Commonwealth’s Attorney Stephanie Morales seeking records concerning the high-profile prosecution of a Portsmouth Police officer. Ultimately, the Commonwealth Attorney’s office claimed they were not the custodian of the records I sought, despite the Portsmouth Police Department claiming the Commonwealth’s Attorney was, in fact, the custodian. I decided to sue. I started to wonder, as we creep towards what should be a simple, brief trial: how much is the private law firm charging Morales’ office to defend her? Understanding that it’s ultimately the taxpayers who will foot the bill….That’s $140,612.78 in total charges – $30,750.00 of which has been paid – leaving a balance of a cool $109,862.78 due as of last month. And we haven’t even entered the trial phase yet!

The Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) officials quoted Adam Osmond over $40,000 for records responsive to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. That amount is based on a fee of up to 25 cents for copying over 16,000 pages of records. But that fee does not apply to electronic records. FOIA in Connecticut allows state agencies to charge a maximum of 25 cents per page fee for copying records. State agencies are not allowed to charge more for requests than disclosing records costs a public agency. The law also directs the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) to create guidelines for fees associated with electronic records. DAS’ current guidelines limit the fees agencies should charge for electronic records. “The calculation of fees should include only the time it takes the state employee(s) to format and program the request.” the guidelines state. Agencies can also charge for any media, such as hard drives, records copied, or printing of electronic records if that is requested. The guidelines also prohibit agencies from charging for the time it takes to search for and retrieve responsive records.