The Virginia Coalition for Open Government

Current FOI Law & FAQs

FOI Citizens’ Guide

Newsletter

FOIA Opinions

Create FOIA Request Letter

Ask Us a FOIA Question

FOI Blog

2008 Legislative Roundup

In the News

Current Headlines

Ongoing Stories / Editorials

About VCOG

The Coalition at a Glance

Donate

Join the Coalition

Web site tutorial

More resources are available at
the Va. Freedom of Information
Advisory Council, Virginia's
full-time FOI compliance office

Current Headlines

Culpeper Star Exponent editorial: Google/Virginia partnership

Monday, May 7, 2007 Culpeper Star Exponent editorial

Internet search engines have impacted mankind's ability to instantly research, learn and interact on a scale never seen in history. The amount of information aggregated by sites like Yahoo! and Google is simply overwhelming, and it continues to grow in staggering proportions. Last week, the states of Arizona, California, Utah and Virginia partnered with Google to make it easier for people to find information on state government Web sites. That's good for three reasons: 1. It promotes open government and reaffirms our state's commitment to keep records available for public viewing through modern methods. 2. It links private industry with the public sector, offering incentives for both. 3. It makes it easier for the average Joe to track down hard-to-find documents and other information that can get lost in cyberspace. Remember the Dewey decimal system? Can you imagine the absolute joy - and shock - of transporting a librarian from the 1980s to today's era? Students these days don't know how good they've got it. Google's vision is "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful," according to Chairman and CEO Eric Schmidt. "These partnerships are among many that Google is pursuing with government agencies to better serve the public." As information-gathering continues to improve, it's important that all levels of government keep up with the times. We applaud the state and Gov. Tim Kaine for staying on the cutting edge of technology while promoting the public good. "Our goal is to provide easy, quick and intuitive citizen access to every government resource," Kaine said. "Google is helping us to achieve it."

Virginia/Google partnership

Virginia and Google announce partnership to improve citizen access to digital government
Richmond.comTuesday, May 01, 2007

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine announced Monday a first-of-its-kind partnership between Virginia and Google Inc. that makes it easier for citizens to search and find relevant Web-based information and services on Virginia's state government Web sites. State webmasters, Virginia.gov and Google staff have worked together since January to implement a Sitemap protocol, a standard that enables a Web site owner to better communicate the contents of a site to search engines so that more pages on the Web site are searchable. Virginia has also upgraded the search tool on the state portal to encompass the full range of government information citizens may be seeking. Using the Google Custom service, Virginia now provides visitors to Virginia.gov the ability to search for information from all sectors of government, whether provided by a federal, state, or local government source. Google has assisted state officials in implementing these Web site improvements at no cost. The states of Arizona, California and Utah also have partnered with Google in this pilot initiative. Almost 80,000 URLs from 27 Virginia.gov domains have already been added to the Google search engine through the initiative and that number will continue to increase as others in state government join the project. The net result of the Google initiative is an increased ability for a citizen in need of service or information to quickly and intuitively find that information, even and especially if the citizen doesn't know which agency provides it. Secretary of Technology Aneesh Chopra secured a wide range of state agency participation in the Virginia pilot program on behalf of the Governor. The agencies represented in the pilot provide a wide range of services and information of value to citizens across the state. Virginia participants in the Google pilot program include: The Office of the Governor; Office of the Lt. Governor; Va. Information Technologies Agency; Governor's Office for Substance Abuse Prevention; Auditor of Public Accounts; Council on Virginia's Future; eVa (the state's electronic procurement system); Library of Virginia; Va. Assistive Technology System; Va. Board for People with Disabilities; Va. Department for the Blind and Vision Impaired; Va. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; Va. Department of Game and Inland Fisheries; Va. Department of Health Professions; Va. Department of Emergency Management; Va. Department of General Services; Va. Department of Environmental Quality; Va. Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services; Va. Department of Accounts; Va. Department of Forestry; Va. Department of Social Services; Va. Department of Labor and Industry; and Va. Tourism.
--The preceding was compiled from a news release from Gov. Kaine's office.

See related editorial from the Culpeper Star Exponent

Virginian-Pilot editorial: concealed weapons

Virginian-Pilot editorial:
April 16, 2007

When The Roanoke Times put up on its Web site a database of everyone in the state with a concealed-weapons permit, it prompted a nationwide outcry from outed gunowners - many of them worried about their safety.

Richmond's reaction to the online indiscretion could've easily made a bad situation worse. At the moment, we have Attorney General Bob McDonnell to thank that it didn't.

Having said that, there are certainly no victories in this entire episode, for anyone, among them the media, gun-rights advocates and open-government types.

An explanation: Whenever a Virginian applies to carry a concealed gun, the government gathers information, which it then puts into a database maintained by the state police. That database was freely accessible to anyone who asked for it. And then Roanoke decided to make the database available on the Web to anyone who wanted to search it.

There were crime victims in there, and others who had reason to worry about stalkers or others with nefarious intent. The newspaper quickly pulled the database off its Web site, but the outrage didn't die.

After weeks of recrimination, last week McDonnell issued an opinion on disseminating the database. Essentially, McDonnell says the information should remain open to public inspection. Practically, though, it may be far harder to get.

Information from permit-holders will continue to be available in local courthouses. But McDonnell gave the state police permission to withhold the database itself: "it is my opinion that the express language... limits the use of concealed carry permit information to law-enforcement personnel for investigative purposes"

That's an inference based on this language in state statute: "The State Police shall enter the permittee's name and description in the Virginia Criminal Information Network so that the permit's existence and current status will be made known to law-enforcement personnel accessing the Network for investigative purposes."

In Virginia, a public record is presumed to be open to public scrutiny. To withhold this database and not run afoul of Virginia's open-records laws requires the assumption that the database is to be used only for investigative purposes, which requires a bit of a leap. But only a bit.

There is certainly precedent for handling some kinds of information this way. Criminal records, for example, are available online, but in a way that allows the public to search only one city at a time. Detailed property records are available - in most cases - only at courthouses.

McDonnell's decision has been met with discomfort by both open-records advocates, who hate to see this kind of information concealed, and from political groups - including gun-rights advocates - who've used the database to raise money, awareness, or to spur action.

The AG has been criticized by some for taking the easy way out to score political points. While a decision absolutely defending the public's right to access the database might've been nice, it would've only invited legislators to close it down - or worse - when the General Assembly reconvenes in 2008.

McDonnell's opinion may not be the ideal choice, but it is the sensible one.

Daily Press editorial: Concealed-gun permits

(Newport News) Daily Press
April 11 2007

Two weeks ago we asked readers whether they thought the public should have access to records showing who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The question was prompted by the outrage that followed publication on The Roanoke Times' Web site of a list of the names and addresses of permit holders statewide.

Readers who responded - excerpts from some of the responses are printed below - overwhelmingly said no. They don't want the records open to the public.

We disagree - with an important qualification.

First, to the question of whether the records should be open. Yes.

The default position for government records is that they should be available for public inspection. Shut government away from citizens' scrutiny, and pretty soon you compromise liberty, too.

Government records should be carved out for special treatment - kept secret - only if a compelling case can be made for doing so. That case can't be made for concealed-gun permits. Attorney General Bob McDonnell's recent opinion that the database of permit holders is an investigative tool and, as such, is exempt from public access smells of political expediency.

ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST

One of the arguments for closing concealed-carry records - that criminals and others would use them for their own nefarious ends - frays when subjected to scrutiny. You'd have to think criminals pretty stupid to believe they'd target homes that essentially have a "beware of guns" sign out. Most folks in the market for illegal guns would have no trouble getting one with a lot less hassle and risk than breaking into the home of someone known to be armed.

Another argument offered - that these are not records of government proceedings - also fails. They are the result of a government process that regulates how weapons can be carried and where, a process that includes not only issuing pieces of paper but also checking criminal history. That's government at work.

There are certain categories of government records where the case for secrecy can be made. School and medical records fall in this group: They contain personal information no stranger has any need or right to know, information that was not gathered at the subject's request. A record of a concealed-weapon permit is created only because an individual applied for a permit. And, by law, it doesn't include personal information beyond basic identifiers that are readily available from other sources.

ON THE INTERNET

If records are public, they should also be available on the Internet. There is ongoing discussion - not just about gun permits - about whether some records should be available at the courthouse or other government office, but not accessible online. It's time to put a halt to that thinking. If it's a public document, it should be available on the Internet, because that is often the most convenient way to give the public access to public information. Remember - this is about government serving the public, not government collecting information and then trying to hide it from the public.

Of course, simply because a record is available for public scrutiny doesn't mean a newspaper or any other media should print or broadcast it. Flawed decisions about what information to publish can sometimes result in even more flawed efforts to regulate information - such as the attorney general's opinion. No doubt in its next session, the General Assembly will consider legislation aimed at closing public access to concealed-weapons records. That's a bad idea and ought to be rejected.

RETHINK THE WHOLE ISSUE

Here, perhaps, is a better approach - that "qualification" mentioned earlier: Virginia should join the ranks of those states that don't require the permits.

When permits were more restricted, when they were issued only to people who could demonstrate a good reason for needing to carry concealed, they made sense. But most restrictions on acquiring a concealed-weapons permit were removed in 1995. Now there's little scrutiny beyond a criminal history check.

So what's the point of requiring a permit and having a record? That's the larger question lawmakers should revisit. In fact, the question of what information government should collect is ripe for review.

If there's to be a record, the public should have access. But there should be a record only if there's a compelling need. In the case of concealed-weapons permits, there is no such need.

Yes, there should be places - more places, such as city council chambers - where it's illegal to carry a weapon. But that's a different issue for a different day.