On a Sunday afternoon in November, a van from the Library of Virginia pulled up at a self-storage facility in Richmond and loaded up 236 boxes of the records of former Gov. Jim Gilmore's administration.

A mediated settlement produced the public records, five months after state archivists had been told the records did not exist "or resided with various agencies and departments of state government."

Nolan Yelich, librarian of Virginia, pushed hard for the records, noting that Gilmore's earlier files contained nothing about 9/11 attacks or the car tax. Gilmore appointees on the Library of Virginia's board backed Yelich in the fight.

Gilmore got to keep 12 boxes of political, personal and private papers. He also won agreement to keep some of the records sealed until 2015, protected by executive privilege or attorney-client privilege.

That set a precedent that could defuse similar battles in the future.

As the Washington Post's R. H. Melton wrote, "former governors have often chaffed at the legal requirement that they shall have delivered' to the state library all correspondence and other records of the office'."

"Under this agreement, the people of Virginia, historians and future generations now will have access to a much more complete historical record from the Gilmore administration," Yelich said.

Missing, however, were four computer tapes of electronic files from the Gilmore administration, the equivalent of 3.2 million pages of material.

"There is clear evidence the tapes were made," the (Newport News) Daily Press said editorially, "but they're nowhere to be found."

The editorial also said, "Just for the record: It's appalling that taxpayers must pay for a now-private and well-heeled citizen's battle to subvert state policy and the public's right to know."

Columnist Jeff Schapiro of the Richmond Times-Dispatch wrote later that the long impasse made Gilmore look "petty, secretive and vindictive."

Leaked memos and dueling op-ed commentaries kept the argument running well into December.

Gilmore wrote in the Times-Dispatch that the agreement provided "a roadmap for correcting fundamental flaws in Virginia's records retention laws." Executive and attorney-client privilege should be explicitly endorsed in the Virginia Public Records Act, he said.

Gilmore also suggested that the Virginia Code define what constitutes a governor's personal and private documents, and clarify the authority of the librarian and the library board.

That was too much for Gil Butler of Roanoke, library board chairman and a Gilmore appointee.

"Public records contain sensitive information, but they are not private." Governors must archive them, and the library seals them for a period of years, depending on the information they contain, he wrote.

"Records are not personal or private just because a governor says so, and a governor cannot simply take a public record and render it private by decree."

"Only respect for our archiving policy and the people's right to know  not the reforms Gov. Gilmore suggests  would have prevented this dispute. The General Assembly should know that neither the librarian nor records laws sparked a constitutional showdown. Gov Gilmore did that himself."

Warning against a legislative rush to rewrite Virginia law, Butler said, "The office of governor belongs to the people of Virginia. In exchange for the high privilege of holding that office, Virginia law requires that governors open up their decision-making process. If future governors understand and respect that policy, disputes such as the one with Gov. Gilmore will not occur again, with or without reform of public records laws."

The (Norfolk) Virginian-Pilot suggested the concession to shield some records until 2015 might result in greater access in the long run.

"If insulating such material from public view for a decade or so makes governors more willing to share internal discussions or secrets, then the boon to historical understanding will be worth the wait," the Pilot said.

Schapiro noted that the Virginia Supreme Court, ruling in 1991 in the Doug Wilder telephone-records case, broadly interpreted the executive privilege doctrine that Gilmore invoked. "It's not entirely clear why Gilmore gave in to an agency run by a board dominated by his appointees. Perhaps Gilmore folded having concluded that his legal problem was largely image, and he had already lost in the court of public opinion."