The Virginia Coalition for Open Government  
Articles
Display # 
  Web Link Hits
  Richmond Times-Dispatch editorial
176
  Lynchburg News & Advance editorial
204
  Retired Roanoke Times Outdoors Editor Bill Cochran
Some DGIF board members apparently haven’t gotten the message and continue to harbor the arrogance of the Woodfin era. At the May 24 board meeting when Woodfin resigned under the threat of being fired, James Hazel, board member from Oakton, looked out on those who had called for reform and said, "You've got trophies on your wall now. I hope that's enough." That topped the list of the 10 most stupid things said during the DGIF caper.
193
  Margaret Edds commentary
Instead of charging Lee and Paulette Albright $3,000 for records from the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and assigning two assistant attorneys general to combat the Albrights in court, Virginia ought to be hailing the couple as heroes.
166
  Court rules Department of Game and Inland Fisheries over-charged for records
"I have never understood why the game department fought this so vehemently," Lee Albright said after the ruling. Albright, a retired optometrist who has been in a long fight with officials at the state game department, won a major court victory. Nelson County Circuit Judge J. Michael Gamble ruled May 27 that the game department over-charged Albright almost $1,000 for copies of documents he sought under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. The judge also said the department was mistaken when it redacted, or blotted out, information on 103 pages Albright was given. The judge allowed redactions on only 38 pages. Finally, in a ruling that could have major implications throughout state government, Gamble ruled that the department had no right to charge Albright for the time officials spent studying and redacting the documents.
175
  Va. Supreme Court opinion (PDF)
The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that a citizen alleging a violation of the FOIA and seeking relief by mandamus pursuant to Code § 2.2-3713(A) is not required to prove a lack of an adequate remedy at law, nor can the mandamus proceeding be barred on the ground that there may be some other remedy at law available.
184
  What Good Are Retention Schedules If They're Ignored? (PDF)
177
  Virginian-Pilot editorial
161