Transparency News 2/26/16
State and Local Stories
As noted in the stories below, the House FOIA subcommittee unanimously voted to defeat all three bills VCOG was concerned with — one on exempting names of law enforcement, one exempting names on publicly available salary databases, and one one critical infrastructure (VCOG opposed an objection procedure added to this one).
A big THANK YOU goes out to the citizens who came to testify against the bills: Dave Briggman of Rockingham County, Mark Hjelm of Prince William County and Andrew Bodoh with a Richmond law firm. They waited hours to give their testimony, which included personal experiences and real-world impact.
And another big THANK YOU goes out to the panel. The meeting lasted for more than three hours and didn’t end until after 8:30. They listened patiently to all sides, made thoughtful comments and asked reasonable questions. And best of all, from our perspective, they defeated the measure. So . . . THANK YOU
Del. Jim LeMunyon (chair)
Del. Richard Anderson
Del. Betsy Carr
Del. Randy Minchew
Del. Roxann Robinson
Del. Jeion Ward
Del. Joseph Yost
A state House subcommittee voted unanimously Thursday evening to kill a bill that would have allowed names of all police officers and deputies in the state to be kept secret. The bill, SB552, by Sen. John Cosgrove, R-Chesapeake, passed the state Senate 25-15, generating national attention because it would have made Virginia the first state to pass such a law, according to open government experts. Cosgrove and representatives of several police associations said the bill was necessary to protect the safety of police officers. Open government advocates and the Virginia Press Association argued that the public has a right to know the names of public employees they pay, and said transparency is important in policing.
Virginian-Pilot
House subcommittee laid aside legislation Thursday that would have allowed law enforcement agencies to shield officer names from the public. Senate Bill 552 will get more study instead of further action this session. It was pitched as a way to protect officers, sheriff's deputies and fire marshals from retributive attacks and terrorism, but the bill's wide-open language caused deep concern among the press and advocates for open government. Law enforcement largely backed the bill, sponsored by state Sen. John Cosgrove, R-Chesapeake. But after hearing from more than a dozen people on either side of the issue, a House General Laws subcommittee punted the measure into an ongoing 3-year study of Virginia's Freedom of Information Act. The vote was unanimous, and committee members spoke of a need for balance between officer privacy and the public's right to know.
Daily Press
A controversial bill that would have allowed police officers’ names to be kept secret was killed by a unanimous vote Thursday in a House of Delegates subcommittee. The legislation, which was beginning to draw national attention as an audacious step to protect officers at a time of increased scrutiny on law enforcement, was defeated by a seven-member subcommittee that deals with open-records issues. Supporters of the bill, Senate Bill 552, argued that officers’ names could be used by anyone to look up personal information on the Internet, such as a home address. Del. Joseph R. Yost, R-Giles, said in the era of Facebook and Twitter, names are already public. “I don’t see, in my mind, having an individual’s name out there as being a threat to safety of others,” said Yost, who made the motion to table the bill. “We all have our names out there in some way, shape or form.”
Richmond Times-Dispatch
The subcommittee also shelved a bill that would have placed new restrictions on public access to information about government employee salaries. SB 202, sponsored by Sen. Richard Stuart, R-Stafford, sought to block employee names from being included in publicly available databases of government salaries. It also raised the threshold for disclosure. Currently, salaries of those who make more than $10,000 per year are subject to public release. SB 202 would have only required disclosure if an employee made more than twice the minimum wage. That would be a little over $30,000 per year at the current rate.
Roanoke Times
Norfolk Public Schools has launched an investigation involving Tommy Smigiel, principal of a Norfolk middle school and city councilman, according to a parent involved in the matter. School Board Chairman Rodney Jordan and two other board members confirmed the investigation but would not comment because it is ongoing. Parent Michael Muhammad said he was recently interviewed by a retired Norfolk police officer in response to a complaint he made about Smigiel late last year.Through a public records request, Muhammad asked the school division for documents and emails related to the incident. According to the division’s response, it will cost $319 for school staff to extract, copy and review the documents. He must pay the fee in advance and some of the information could be excluded, according to the letter. Muhammad said he also requested similar information from the city of Norfolk since Smigiel is a Councilman. According to the city’s response letter, 13 records were located but were withheld under an exemption regarding legal advice and attorney-client privilege. The city charged Muhammad $70 to locate the information.
Virginian-Pilot
In a rare move, Portsmouth Councilman Mark Whitaker voted against verifying that the City Council’s closed-session discussion Tuesday about a sick-leave policy was legal. “In certifying the closed meeting, I voted no because to best of my knowledge the advanced sick leave information, as presented, is a public business matter that is not lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and was discussed in closed meeting,” Whitaker said in an email. Alan Gernhardt, staff attorney for the Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council, said if the council was speaking broadly about a financial loss from the advanced sick leave program, that information should have been discussed in a public meeting.
Virginian-Pilot
National Stories
The Missouri Supreme Court is weighing a lawsuit that accuses state senators of violating the Sunshine Law. Progress Missouri filed suit after being kicked out of Senate hearings on multiple occasions while videotaping proceedings. The group's appeal to the state Supreme Court comes after the circuit judge of Cole County sided with the Senate. The high court heard arguments from both sides on Wednesday. The Senate says it will grant Progress Missouri videotaping privileges if it registers as media with the Capitol News Association. But representatives from the organization, which is heavily involved in advocacy work, say that filing as a media organization would significantly change the nature of their projects.
St. Louis Public Radio
The Sumner County, Tennessee, Board of Education must accept records requests via email and telephone by next week, according to a Tennessee Court of Appeals ruling Wednesday. The school system requested a stay by the appeals court last month, which would have delayed the implementation of a new public records policy by March 1. However, the court found “no grounds to reverse the trial court’s decision” regarding the request.
The Tennessean
Editorials/Columns
The McAuliffe administration has ignored requests for more information about officials’ use of a luxury box for the Washington Redskins’ playoff game on Jan. 10. That’s a losing strategy, and the governor’s office should reverse field at once.
Virginian-Pilot
It’s not often that a public official apologizes for the actions of her peers. But that’s what Kelly Burk did when Town Council insulted the residents of Leesburg on Monday. Sixteen citizens came to the meeting, some with family and friends, to express their interest in serving Leesburg. Each wanted to be heard before the council voted on an interim council member. But the position had already been brokered. Without discussion, the council voted 4-2 to appoint R. Bruce Gemmil. Mr. Gemmil’s nameplate had been prepared before the vote. Denying citizens the right to be heard is the original sin of civic leadership. At Monday’s council meeting, the sin was compounded by the fact that residents seeking to serve their town were ambushed. The deceit does a disservice to Mr. Gemmil, a well-qualified business leader with a long history of community service. We hope he can bridge the divisions on the politicized council.
Loudoun Times-Mirror
“Everybody does it,” is an excuse expected from a mischievous child, not a presidential candidate. But that is Hillary Clinton’s latest defense for making closed-door, richly paid speeches to big banks, which many middle-class Americans still blame for their economic pain, and then refusing to release the transcripts. A televised town hall on Tuesday was at least the fourth candidate forum in which Mrs. Clinton was asked about those speeches. Again, she gave a terrible answer, saying that she would release transcripts “if everybody does it, and that includes the Republicans.” On Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton further complained, “Why is there one standard for me, and not for everybody else?” The only different standard here is the one Mrs. Clinton set for herself, by personally earning $11 million in 2014 and the first quarter of 2015 for 51 speeches to banks and other groups and industries. Voters have every right to know what Mrs. Clinton told these groups. Public interest in these speeches is legitimate, and it is the public — not the candidate — who decides how much disclosure is enough. By stonewalling on these transcripts Mrs. Clinton plays into the hands of those who say she’s not trustworthy and makes her own rules. Most important, she is damaging her credibility among Democrats who are begging her to show them that she’d run an accountable and transparent White House.
New York Times