|
April 12, 1976
THE HONORABLE JAMES B. MURRAY
Member, House of Delegates
75-76 406
This is in reply to your letter in which you ask whether
administrative committees, composed of faculty and administrative
personnel of the University of Virginia, appointed by the President
of the University to study and advise on problems relating to the
University community, are required by the provisions of the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act to meet in public. You inquire more
specifically as follows:
"1) Are the administrative committees protected from the
requirements of the Freedom of Information Act by virtue of the
exemptions granted the Board of Visitors by that Act?
"2) If so, are the committees, like the board, required to
announce their actions after each meeting, with members of the
committees available to discuss the actions, and are the official
minutes of the committees required to be available to the public
not more than three working days after such meetings, with the
exception of actions excluded by the Act?
"3) What changes in the Freedom of Information Act would be
necessary to open the committee meetings?" In setting forth the
types of entities required to meet in public the Freedom of
Information Act provides as follows in §2.1-341(a), Code of
Virginia (1950), as amended:
"Meeting or meetings" means the meetings, when sitting
as a body or entity, or as an informal assemblage of the
constituent membership, with or without minutes being taken,
whether or not votes are cast, of any authority, board, bureau,
commission, district or agency of the State or of any political
subdivision of the State, including cities, towns and counties;
municipal councils, governing bodies of counties, school boards
and planning commissions; and other organizations, corporations
or agencies in the State, supported wholly or principally by
public funds. . . ." (Emphasis added.)
An administrative committee of the type described above is not an
"authority, board, bureau, commission, district or agency of the
State or of any political subdivision of the State" within the
meaning of §2.1-341(a). Accordingly, unless such a committee
constitutes an "organization . . . supported wholly or principally by
public funds," the committee is not included within the scope of
§2.1-341(a) and is, therefore, not subject to the open meeting
requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.
I have previously ruled that the General Professional Advisory
Committee (GPAC), a committee composed of university presidents,
established by the Council on Higher Education to serve the Council
as an advisory arm on a continuing basis, is an "organization"
required to hold open meetings under §2.1-341(a). See Opinion to
the Honorable Lawrence Douglas Wilder, Member, Senate of Virginia,
dated April 21, 1975, and found in the Report
of the Attorney General (1974-1975) at 584. The facts there
revealed that GPAC is the creature of the Council, a public body
subject to the Act, having been created to advise the Council
relative to its official functions which must, of course, be
exercised in open meetings. In the present circumstances, on the
other hand, the committees in question are established by the
University President to advise the President, an administrative
official as distinguished from a public body.
Moreover, the administrative committees of the University are
composed largely of faculty and staff personnel who are the employees
of the institution. By contrast, GPAC is composed of university
presidents who, except for their service as advisors to the Council
on Higher Education, are independent of the Council and certainly
have no relationship of employment with it. The degree of
independence of the members of an advisory committee is an important
criterion in determining whether any such entity constitutes an
"organization" within the meaning of §2.1-341(a). In this
instance, the administrative committees are essentially internal
mechanisms rather than separate organizations.
For these reasons, I am of the opinion that administrative
committees of the University of Virginia are not required to hold
open meetings in compliance with the provisions of the Freedom of
Information Act. It is apparent, however, that the foregoing
conclusion is not based upon the exemption afforded boards of
visitors under §2.1-345. Accordingly, I must respond to your
first numbered inquiry in the negative.
With respect to your inquiry numbered (2), since the exemption of
university administrative committees is not by virtue of
§2.1-345, such committees are not required to comply with
procedural steps outlined in §2.1-345.
In response to your final inquiry, requiring that meetings of
university administrative committees be open to the public would, in
my view, necessitate specific amendment of the provisions of
§2.1-341(a) to include such committees as public bodies subject
to the requirements of the Act.
|