The Virginia FOIA Opinion Archive

As a general principle for FOIA, an entity that receives at least two-thirds, or 66.6 percent, of its operating budget from government sources would be supported wholly or principally by public funds. However, the question of whether an entity is supported principally by public funds is a question of fact that must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Money received through competitive grants and from procurement transactions are more akin to public contracts negotiated between independent parties at arms' length than an appropriation of funds and are not to be considered public funds for purposes of determining whether an entity is a public body. A private entity does not become a public body solely because the private entity provides goods or services to a public body through a procurement transaction. Conversely, money provided through government donations to support a private organization, corporation, or agency without the provision of goods or services in return is considered differently under FOIA. Noncompetitive grants are more akin to appropriations or an exercise of governmental largesse which may be considered public funds for FOIA purposes. The FOIA Council is not a fact-finding body or trier of fact.
 

FOIA policy provides that all public records are presumed open for inspection or copying, unless an exemption is properly invoked. There is a fundamental duty in FOIA for a public body to collaborate with a requester in the production of the records requested. FOIA does not prohibit or restrict access rights under the attorney-client or principal-agent relationships. Virginia law recognizes the legitimacy of legal representation and the principal-agent relationship and such associations do not conflict or contradict with the provisions of FOIA.
 

Any response by a public body to a FOIA request for public records shall comply with the provisions of subsection B of § 2.2-3704 of the Code of Virginia. The working papers exemption in subdivision 2 of § 2.2-3705.7 of the Code of Virginia was designed to provide a zone of privacy for the deliberative process of the designated officials. Any record labeled as a working paper would no longer be afforded the protection of the exemption once it was shared with an outside party. If a record has already been disclosed publicly, then the working papers exemption does not apply and the records must be released, if requested. The exclusion for correspondence in subdivision 2 of § 2.2-3705.7 of the Code of Virginia applies to all written communications such as letters, emails and text messages sent or received by the designated officials. Pursuant to Lawrence v. Jenkins (Va. 1999), a technical violation of FOIA procedure does not change the fact that the records are exempt if a valid exemption applies. FOIA access rights are generally equal for all citizens with no individual having greater access rights to public records than another individual unless otherwise provided by law. FOIA provides that there is a fundamental duty for a public body to collaborate with a requester in production of the records requested. Any search for records made under FOIA must be carried out in a good faith effort by a public body's officers and employees.
 

FOIA affirmatively requires that "records of the name, position, job classification, official salary, or rate of pay of, and records of the allowances or reimbursements for expenses paid to, any officer, official, or employee of a public body" be made available to the public. However, while the Virginia personnel information exemption requires the release of "official salary, or rate of pay of, and records of the allowances or reimbursements for expenses paid to, any officer, official, or employee of a public body," it does not explicitly require the release of bonus or overtime pay. Nevertheless, this office generally recommends releasing all information on overtime pay, bonuses, or other compensation. Additionally, persuasive authority from other jurisdictions makes it appear likely that such information might not meet the Hawkins test as information that would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy were it to be released. For those reasons, this office encourages such disclosures as a matter of best practice even though these disclosures are not explicitly required by statute.

FOIA does not require a public body to charge a requester at all, but if charges are assessed, FOIA provides that a public body may only do so within the stated limitations. A public body may assess charges for the production of requested records which includes the hourly rate of pay for the staff that researched and responded to the request and cost of copies. Charges must be limited specifically to the actual cost to a public body for accessing, duplicating, supplying, or searching for the requested records. FOIA requires that a public body make all reasonable efforts to supply the requested records at the lowest possible cost. Fees for fringe benefits are a general cost associated with transacting the general business of the public body. Any extraneous, intermediary, or surplus fees or expenses to recoup the general costs associated with creating or maintaining records or transacting the general business of the public body is not allowed under FOIA. There is the expectation of a "good faith" effort by public officials, employees, and staff members to conduct a search for records in responding to FOIA requests. FOIA does not require any public body's officials, employees, or staff members to recuse themselves from a records request. It is the responsibility of these officials, employees, and staff members trained in the requirements and provisions of FOIA to understand how to respond to requests in accordance with the law on behalf of the public bodies they serve.
 

The exemption for a closed meeting relating to discussion of actual or probable litigation does not require that legal counsel be present at the discussion. Briefings pertaining to actual or probable litigation may be performed by staff members or consultants. Conversely, the exemption for a closed meeting pertaining to consultation with legal counsel employed or retained by a public body regarding specific legal matters does require that legal counsel be present accordingly. Public notice of a special, emergency, or continued meeting must be reasonable under the circumstances and shall be given contemporaneously with the notice being provided to the members of the public body conducting the meeting.

Discusses the circumstances under which a pro se petitioner becomes eligible to obtain reimbursement of attorney fees after hiring an attorney to represent the petitioner in a FOIA matter or during the appeal process. A court would have to determine that a petitioner's rights and privileges were denied in violation of law, that the petitioner had substantially prevailed on the merits of his case, and that there were no special circumstances that would make the awarding of attorney fees and costs unjust. The court would have to determine the amount of attorney fees and costs that were incurred by a petitioner in the litigation proceedings and award a reimbursement amount
 

Upon a receipt of a request, a public body must respond in accordance with the established provisions and timeframes in subsection B of § 2.2-3704. If part of the requested records are being withheld from release, a public body shall identify with reasonable particularity the subject matter of withheld portions, and cite, as to each category of withheld records, the specific Code section that authorizes the withholding of the records. Considering the policy of FOIA and the legal duties it imposes, there is a presumption of good faith that a custodian of records will obey the law in carrying out their duties by searching for and providing all records as requested unless the records are exempt or prohibited from release. FOIA is intended to be a non-adversarial process for obtaining information.

A Governor-elect's transition teams generally would not be public bodies subject to FOIA unless they are supported wholly or principally by public funds. Transition team records might be public records subject to FOIA (i) if the transition team is a public body because it is supported by public funds or (ii) if transition team records are possessed by another public body in the transaction of public business. Applying FOIA's narrow construction rule for exemptions, the working papers and correspondence exemption, subdivision 2 of § 2.2-3705.7, may only be used by those listed in the exemption itself. While the "Office of the Governor" is listed in the exemption, "Governor-elect" is not and therefore, a Governor-elect may not use the working papers and correspondence exemption.

Public Subsection D of § 15.2-2907 exempts the Commission on Local Government and certain meetings from FOIA, but does not otherwise address access to public records under FOIA. Also discussed the attorney-client privilege exemption, delivery methods and remedies available under FOIA.

Public bodies are required to provide cost estimates for the production of public records upon request, but FOIA does not specify the level of detail to be included with a cost estimate. Because an estimate is inexact by definition and sometimes the total costs that may be incurred cannot be predicted with accuracy, FOIA does not require a public body to declare a maximum amount. In such situations, public bodies are encouraged to communicate the factual basis for the estimate and seek to reach an agreement with the requester on the production of records, which may include agreed limits on the amount of time and money to
be expended.

The Parole Board is largely excepted from FOIA, but that exception only applies to the Board itself. However, the Office of the State Inspector General (OSIG) may withhold certain records it receives from the Board pursuant to the administrative investigation exemption at subdivision 7 of § 2.2-3705.3. The same exemption requires that OSIG must release records of completed investigations in redacted form. FOIA does not prohibit the release of OSIG reports by members of the General Assembly, but it would be beyond the statutory authority of this office to opine whether other laws outside of FOIA may act as such prohibitions on voluntary disclosure.

Although personnel records may be withheld from public disclosure, accounting records that reflect payments made by a public body to a former employee pursuant to a settlement agreement are not exempt. As this office is not a trier of fact, only a court has the authority to resolve factual disputes about specific records.

The provisions of § 2.2-3708.2 allowing members to participate in meetings by electronic communication means are alternative meetings procedures, not exemptions from public access that would allow meetings to be closed to the public. If a member is calling in due to a disability or medical condition or due to a personal matter, the member must specify which reason it is in order to notify the chair and comply with the requirements for minutes. A generalized concern about illness is not a sufficient reason to use the provision allowing remote participation due to a disability or medical condition, but following the recommendations of VDH and CDC to stay home during the COVID-19 state of emergency is a sufficient reason, particularly if the member is in one of the categories at higher risk to contract a severe illness. However, each body may set its own policy on participation as allowed by FOIA, up to and including not using these remote participation provisions at all.

The records exclusion at subdivision 1 of § 2.2-3705.3 exempts from mandatory disclosure "information relating to investigations of applicants for licenses and permits, and of all licensees and permittees, made by or submitted to" certain public bodies. That language includes the application and materials submitted. Additionally, unlike several other exemptions in the same section, the language of this exemption does not limit its application to active investigations nor does it require the disclosure of inactive or completed reports.

Closed meeting motions must include a subject, purpose, and citation and must be set forth in detail in the meeting minutes. Votes taken after a closed meeting must reasonably identify the substance of the vote. Meeting minutes must include a summary of the discussion on matters proposed, deliberated or decided, and a record of any votes taken.

A public body may not provide a requester with a summary of an existing record instead of the record itself, even when the record may be redacted, unless the requester agrees to accept the summary instead.

The fundraising exemption, subdivision A 7 of § 2.2-3705.4, allows a public body to withhold certain information maintained in connection with fundraising activities by or for a public institution of higher education. The identity of a donor may only be withheld under the fundraising exemption if the donor has requested anonymity in connection with or as a condition of making a pledge or donation. Only a court has the authority to review records in camera and render a legally binding decision on whether redactions were properly made.

The exemption in subdivision 13 of § 2.2-3705.1 applies to certain account numbers and routing information, but does not address the names of credit card holders. The expedited hearing provisions in § 2.2-3713 apply regardless of whether a petition is filed in general district court or circuit court. Only a court may rule on evidentiary matters.

The exemption in subdivision 32 of § 2.2-3705.6 of FOIA applies to “information related to a grant application, or accompanying a grant application” that is submitted to the Department of Housing and Community Development as described in the exemption. Challenges to applications submitted as part of the Virginia Telecommunications Initiative program are not exempt from disclosure under this exemption as they are not submitted by the applicant.
 

Failure to provide notice and take minutes of public meetings as required by FOIA are violations of FOIA. Only a court may rule on whether any particular notice is reasonable under the circumstance for a special, emergency, or continued meeting. Once posted, notices should not be removed before the meeting occurs.

Charges for public records are limited to reasonable charges not to exceed the public body's actual costs, but the question of whether a particular charge is reasonable may be decided only by a court.

Section 54.1-108 provides that certain license applications and scoring records, among other records, are not subject to disclosure under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. This opinion considers a dispute regarding the redaction of applicant names from records related to the application and scoring process.

Records concerning identifiable individual students, including individual students' test scores, are scholastic records that are exempt from mandatory disclosure under FOIA. The redaction of a student's name and other personal information does not necessarily make a scholastic record a nonexempt record that must be disclosed under FOIA as the record may still contain information about the specific individual, whether identified by name or not.