Megan Rhyne's blog

The sponsors are different each year, but the goal is the same: prohibit the disclosure at local courthouses of concealed handgun permit applications (CHPs).

VCOG has opposed the bills in past years and it will again this year. I know a lot of people will disagree with VCOG. Some may agree. As an open government advocacy group, this issue for us is about access to government records. There's no other agenda here.

Here's what Virginia's FOIA says in section 2.2-3707(H) about recording meetings:

Any person may photograph, film, record or otherwise reproduce any portion of a meeting required to be open. The public body conducting the meeting may adopt rules governing the placement and use of equipment necessary for broadcasting, photographing, filming or recording a meeting to prevent interference with the proceedings, but shall not prohibit or otherwise prevent any person from photographing, filming, recording, or otherwise reproducing any portion of a meeting required to be open.

Tuesday is Election Day. All 140 seats of the General Assembly are up for grabs (well, far too many of the seats are not up for grabs because redistricting has put many senators and delegates into "safe" districts). Throw in all the races for local boards of supervisors, town councils, school boards and constitutional officers, and we will easily see hundreds of new faces in elected office come November 9.

(This article appeared on the McLean Patch site Monday, Oct. 24, 2011)

There's a court case being heard Tuesday in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond.

Anyone who's followed the Virginia Coalition for Open Government over the years has heard me talk about McBurney v. Young: the case challenging Virginia law that says Virginia FOIA is for Virginians. It's not for Tennesseeans or North Carolinians, or, mon dieu, for Californians.

A subcommittee of the Virginia FOIA Council is still studying what to do with Sen. Steve Newman's bill introduced in 2011 and sent to the council for study. As originally drafted, the bill would prohibit the name of a public employee to be released in connection with that employee's salary data.

In Virginia, salary data and names are required to be disclosed. Salary is not a personnel issue, in other words. The requirement also says that it does not apply to anyone making under $10,000.

I'm incredibly proud of the Cavalier Daily for wading into the controversy surrounding UVA's response to the American Tradition Institute's request of a former professor's email on climate change.

Much attention was recently directed at the governor's Government Reform Commission's revelation that it held a series of closed-door workgroups to discuss possible recommendations. Last year the commission used public committees to consider recommendations, so when the commission's staff announced in April that it would use the workgroup format, I don't think anyone thought they would be anything other than open to the public also.

I received a disturbing note this week from an anonymous state government employee. This person contacted me about how individuals in his/her agency were using gmail accounts and Dropbox-type clouds to discuss public business.

by Megan Rhyne

(This article originally appeared in the Times-Dispatch, Sept. 8, 2011)
(Also note: the day before the article appeared, the Governor said that work groups in which 3 or more commission members participated would be open; no word on whether groups with fewer members would be open, too.) 

Imagine our disbelief if a reporter from the Richmond Times-Dispatch asked U.S. Representative Randy Forbes for comments on the debt ceiling crisis, only to be told that Mr. Forbes couldn't say anything until he talked to Rep. John Boehner first.

Imagine our outrage if someone from the Midlothian Exchange asked Virginia Sen. John Watkins for his opinion on insurance coverage for autism therapy, only to be told that Mr. Watkins couldn't comment until he'd run it by Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling.