Transparency News 6/4/19

Tuesday
June 4, 2019

state & local news stories

“Current and former board members testified that they do not pass resolutions or otherwise vote on any matter in closed session.”

The Virginia Beach employee who shot and killed 12 people at a municipal building gave no hint of the massacre to come when he emailed his resignation letter earlier in the day, saying that he was leaving for “personal reasons” but that “it has been a pleasure to serve.” The gunman’s two-sentence emailed resignation letter — released by city officials Monday, three days after the shooting — put authorities, the community and victims’ families no closer to understanding why the engineer with 15 years on the job would go on a rampage at work.
Richmond Times-Dispatch

In its second try at filling a vacant seat, the Virginia Beach School Board picked a child welfare advocate. Board members said they weighed community opinions, finalist interviews and the quality of their applications before making their choice. Interviews were held in closed session, which upset some residents.  Before Tuesday’s vote, several members admitted their process was flawed and vowed to be more transparent next time. 
The Virginian-Pilot

The man behind ITFederal and a proposed law-enforcement academy could have received financial help from the Front Royal-Warren County Economic Development Authority to pursue a third project, court documents reveal. But County Attorney Dan Whitten claims former EDA Executive Director Jennifer McDonald forged a June 24, 2016, resolution that allowed officers of the agency’s board to execute documents needed to buy property for no more than $2.5 million, in McDonald’s name or that of a limited liability company for a farming operation by Truc “Curt” Tran. Whitten called the June 24, 2016, authorization resolution a “fraudulent” and fictitious document as he testified at the hearing. The signatures of the EDA board members at the time appeared under the resolution. Ron Llewellyn made the motion, seconded by L. Greg Drescher, to adopt the motion. Llewellyn and Drescher, who recently stepped down from the EDA board, testified that the signatures were theirs. However, both testified that they did not recall signing such a resolution, nor would they. The resolution states that the board passed it “at a closed meeting.” Llewellyn, Drescher and other former board members testified that they do not pass resolutions or otherwise vote on any matter in closed session per the rules of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act that requires public bodies take such action in open meetings.
The Northern Virginia Daily

stories of national interest

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from a right-wing provocateur who had sought to post throughout Metro advertisements depicting the Prophet Muhammad. Pamela Gellar and her organization, American Freedom Defense Initiative, had argued that Metro’s refusal to run the ads violated the right to free speech.
The Washington Times
 

editorials & columns

“The Supreme Court is being asked to dramatically limit the definition of “confidential” in a way that would let the corporate interest decide what can and cannot be disclosed to the public.”

Recently, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that will probably fly under most people’s radar, but which may have dire consequences for the public, the press and even the free market. The case, Food Marketing Institute (FMI) v. Argus Leader, began eight years ago when a reporter for the Argus Leader, a South Dakota newspaper, submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the U.S. Department of Agriculture asking for information about revenue that retailers receive from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the federal food stamp program paid for by taxpayers. All 50 states and over 100 countries have freedom of information laws that were inspired by and based on the United States Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), adopted by Congress in 1966. All stand for the principle that the public is entitled to access to information held by its government. But if FMI has its way, private companies, not the government, will decide what the public gets to know. The Supreme Court is being asked to dramatically limit the definition of “confidential” in a way that would let the corporate interest decide what can and cannot be disclosed to the public.
Tom Susman and Lisa Rosenberg, The Hill