In response to an inquiry from the Sierra Club, the council issued AO-25-03 to answer whether Newport News could withhold records generated by a public relations firm hired to boost public support for the King William Reservoir Project. The city invoked the attorney-client and work-product exemptions of FOIA. The council, however, concluded that the attorney-client exemption did not apply because the PR firm was not acting as the city’s agent, or as its law firm, for purposes of rendering legal advice. The council further concluded that the attorney work-product exemption did not apply because the records related to a PR campaign, not to any legal proceedings.

Would the list of Internet sites visited by a patron at a public library be exempt from FOIA disclosure? The council said “yes” in AO-26-03. FOIA exempts from disclosure the identity of a library patron and the materials that he borrows from the library. By protecting a patron’s privacy interest in the resources he examines, these exemptions ensure a patron’s academic and intellectual freedom. Based on this rationale, the council interpreted current exemptions to include the sites that a patron visits.

The Richmond Police Department asked the council to resolve an apparent conflict between two sections of FOIA. Section 2.2-3706(F)(1) allows the government to withhold evidentiary and legal materials relating to a criminal investigation and prosecution. But, §2.2-3706(G) requires the government to disclose local police records, including arrest and investigative reports. However, some of required disclosures under (G) are the type of information that (F) gives the government discretion to withhold. After reviewing the relevant legislative history, the council declared in AO-27-03 that the legislature intended to exclude all records of criminal investigation and prosecution from disclosure.

Mike Stollenwerk wrote the council regarding the application of FOIA to the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority. The MWAA is a public entity created from a compact between Virginia and Washington, D.C. A federal statute designated the laws and courts of Virginia to resolve all disputes involving the MWAA. The council, therefore, concluded in AO-01-04 that Virginia’s FOIA would also apply to the MWAA. The council then concluded that documents containing legal advice from MWAA’s counsel would be exempt from disclosure under FOIA. The council also noted that Virginia law allows a public body to recoup reasonable costs of disclosure from the requester. However, the council declined to offer an opinion as to whether the $12,000 disclosure costs quoted by MWAA would be reasonable.

Concerned about the progress of the Sandy River Reservoir Project, Wilkie Chaffin wrote the council to inquire whether FOIA required Prince Edward County to give public notice of its closed-door meetings and release draft documents of contract negotiations between the county and Farmville. The council concluded in AO-02-04 that the county as a public body must give notice of the time, date and location of its meetings, even if the only item on the agenda for the meeting is a closed session. However, a public body may withhold records and conduct closed meetings relating to contract negotiations until a decision to enter into or not to enter into the contract is reached by the public body.

Investigating alleged misuse of public funds by the Peninsula Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Michael Mather of WTKR NewsChannel 3 asked for the council’s opinion on whether FOIA applied to the organization. Although SPCA is not a government agency, four local governments had contracted the SPCA to work as the local animal control authority. The council concluded in AO-03-04 that SPCA would be subject to FOIA’s disclosure requirements, because the SPCA acted as an agent of the government and received a substantial amount of funds from it.

The Virginia Department of Games and Inland Fisheries billed Lee Albright $207.50 as expenses incurred from processing his request to view the salary and benefits of the department’s employees for the past three years. In response to Albright’s questions regarding the reasonableness of the cost, the council issued AO-04-04. The council concluded that FOIA requires a public body to make available salary records of public employees. However, FOIA does not require a public body to create a spreadsheet or cull a list out of these records. Therefore, a public body cannot charge a requester to create such spreadsheets or lists unless it reaches an agreement with the requester beforehand.

Engaged in litigation with an unnamed state university, Diana May requested access to the university’s public records under FOIA. The university’s attorney responded that only May’s attorney could make such requests. Section 2.2-3704(A) of FOIA states that except as otherwise specifically provided by law, all public records shall be open to inspection and copying by any citizen of the Commonwealth. Therefore, the council concluded in AO-05-04 that absent a specific court order, the university as a public body cannot require a Virginia citizen to make a FOIA request through her attorney.

The town of Onancock denied Charles Landis access to records of the town’s application to the Main Street Program, an urban revitalization program administered by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. The town applied for the program in conjunction with the Onancock Business and Civic Organization. The town denied Landis’ FOIA request on the ground that the records are in possession of the chairman of the business association who is not a government employee. The council declared in AO-06-04 that records of a committee established by a public body are public records subject to FOIA, even if the records are physically held by a private sector member of the committee at his private place of business.

The Loudoun County Attorney inquired about whether there was a FOIA exemption for personal information furnished to members of the Loudon County Board of Supervisors for the purpose of receiving e-mail. The council concluded in AO-07-04 that §2.2-3705(A)(78) only exempts personal information provided to a public body for purposes of receiving e-mail from a public body. It does not apply to personal information provided to an individual elected official who chooses to send out e-mails or updates to constituents. Therefore, the personal information furnished to individual board members would be subject to disclosure.