It's popular to bash mainstream media, says Lucy Dalglish of the Virginia-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (and VCOG board member), but they've spent a lot of money fighting for the public's right to know what its public and private institutions are up to, "They spent the money on your behalf. You may have noticed your local media have hit hard times. ...I'm afraid. Very afraid that the folks we've always counted on to push for open government won't be able to continue this battle." http://aan.org/alternative/full_text_of_lucy_dalglish_s_prepared_remarks/Aan/ViewArticle?oid=1234148
Florida Governor Charlie Crist last week barred two new exemptions from being added to the state's public records law when he vetoed a pair of bills approved by state lawmakers. The first would have shielded from public disclosure any "proprietary business information" the Department of Management received from a telecommunications or broadband company. The second would have created an exemption for information identifying a donor or prospective donor to a publicly owned building. http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=10866
Times-Dispatch editorial: The governor says if people want to know where he was on a given day, he will tell them. We trust him. If he went to Kansas City to see the Royals lose, he would say so. If he went to Minneapolis to raise moola for Democratic candidates, he would say so. But there are some things citizens and journalists should not have to ask. http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/opinion/editorials/article/ED-TRAV01_20090630-181805/277215/
Washington Post editorial: MARK SANFORD he's not. Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) isn't taking phantom hikes through the Appalachians. He's not jetting off to Argentina (as far as we know). Rather, Mr. Kaine's sin is a relatively minor omission: He's been less than forthright about disclosing his travels as Democratic National Committee chairman. The destinations are less exotic than South America (think Kansas City), which makes the lack of disclosure all the more puzzling. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/30/AR2009063003128.html
Once again, the FOI Advisory Council has had to remind FOIA requesters and government officials alike to play nice.
In its June 9, 2009, opinion (AO-06-09), the council congratulated a citizen and a rep from the AG's office for their "polite and concise" communications with each other. But the council also observed:
However, some of the messages were riddled with unnecessary editorial comments that could only serve to foster and [ex]acerbate an adversarial situation. FOIA transactions are not meant to be adversarial, and can only be affected negatively by such commentary.
The council also had to admonish the parties to stop inundating the office with additional information after requesting a formal opinion from the office.
such unsolicited additional information delays the drafting of the requested opinion and often raises the question of whether the new material presents a new request. For the future, when a formal opinion is requested, we ask that the requester not send us additional information unless we specifically ask for it.
Too often we see requesters who suspect a government plot to cheat or trick them out of records. Too often we see government workers who view FOIA requesters as stalkers. Not saying that there aren't some of each on both sides. But the bitter comments that flare up over even the most minor disputes or deviations serve no good purpose other than, as the FOIA Council pointed out, "to foster and exacerbate an adversarial situation."
Also, as FOIA Council director Maria Everett reminds people during her training sessions: you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Virginia passed a law in 2008 that allows courts to close access to juror lists upon a showing of good cause (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+19.2-263.3). The bill was originally introduced in 2007, sponsored by Del. Morgan Griffith (R-Salem), but was sent to the Crime Commission for study. Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas) carried the bill in 2008 and made clear during committee sessions that his aim was to protect jurors in situations where there may be retaliation, especially in gang trials.
A story last month in the Virginian-Pilot, however, reported that Virginia Beach courts have taken the opportunity to close access to juror lists is ALL cases. (http://hamptonroads.com/node/509317).
And, because the legislation also directs the Supreme Court to promulgate further rules on the protection of juror information, the court's advisory committee on court rules has issued a proposed rule, which will be open for public comment through Sept. 1.
The rule is no friend to the public's (and defendant's) right to a public trial: providing for automatic numbering of jurors so names won't be used in open court; prohibiting sharing of juror information sheets and subsequent sealing of them; and limited possible disclosure of information -- only upon motion for good cause to those with "legitimate interest."
Virginia Coalition for Open Government 540.353.8264 P.O. Box 2576, Williamsburg VA 23187-2576
Site Credits
Funding for this web site was provided by the National Freedom of Information Coalition, and was made possible by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
