Culpeper loses in FOIA case

By CHELYEN DAVIS, Free Lance-Star 09.16.06

RICHMOND--The Culpeper County Board of Supervisors violated state law when it met in closed session to discuss a school construction project, the Virginia Supreme Court has ruled.

In an opinion issued Sept. 15, the court reversed a Culpeper Circuit Court decision that supervisors did not violate the law when they met with a project architect in private during a 2004 board meeting.

The high court also reversed the lower court's decision to deny attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs in the case.

Several news organizations--including The Free Lance-Star, the Culpeper Star-Exponent, the Culpeper Citizen and the Virginia Press Association--filed suit against the board after the supervisors held the closed meeting to discuss issues surrounding construction of a new high school. Witnesses in the case testified that the supervisors wanted to meet with the project's architect in private, without the School Board present.

A Circuit Court judge ruled that while the board had improperly identified its reason for closing the meeting, the purpose behind closing the meeting fell within Freedom of Information Act guidelines, which allow closed meetings for purposes of contract procurement and negotiation. The judge, Herman A. Whisenant Jr., also ruled that the news organizations were not justified in asking for court costs and attorneys' fees.

The news organizations appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments in the case earlier this year.

The high court said that while the Board of Supervisors argued that its discussions with the architect were related to contract negotiations and thus fell under the Freedom of Information Act exemption, the wording of that law requires a narrow interpretation.

The court wrote: "[W]e are bound by these principles. In construing statutory language, we are bound by the plain meaning of clear and unambiguous language."

The board's "expansive interpretation" of the law "would be inconsistent with the General Assembly's directive that an exemption to FOIA's requirement of open meetings be narrowly construed," the court wrote. "The board's purpose in closing its October 5 meeting is not one that is allowed under the exemption.

" Thus we conclude the circuit court erred in finding the Board did not violate FOIA by closing its October 5, 2004 meeting."

The ruling means the news organizations have prevailed in the case, and are entitled to be awarded attorneys' fees and court costs, which had been denied under the Circuit Court's ruling.

None of the lower court's grounds for denying attorneys' fees--that the Board of Supervisors was following established procedure in closing the meeting, and did not willfully violate the law--were supported by the Supreme Court in its ruling.

Ginger Stanley, executive director of the Virginia Press Association, said in a written statement that the state's highest court "has stated clearly that it takes the General Assembly's rule of construction seriously: the Act is to be construed to maximize public access, and its exclusions are not to be stretched to deny public access."

Culpeper County Attorney J. David Maddox said he was "disappointed, but the court makes the final statement of what the law is. We thought we were complying."

"Hindsight is a wonderful thing," Maddox said. "We will do our best to comply."