The outrageous judiciary “opinion” about FOIA

sunshine week right to knowA judge has ruled that he feels that the complaint about the Pittsylvania Agriculture Board being in violation of Virginia FOIA was politically motivated more than an actual complaint.

“It is apparent this case is … more about politics than it is about legality,” Reynolds said. However, he did find the board violated FOIA by not giving proper notice of going into and coming out of closed session during its meeting April 8.
<blockquote>FOIA is being used as a “club” by individuals not happy with the board’s performance, Reynolds said.

What gave this judge that idea seems to be unknown, since the law itself does not anticipate such a ridiculous defense of the illegal actions of the board.

You might remember that citizens were effectively kicked out of a meeting back in April of this year, after the board claimed it was going into executive session. There was a raging thunderstorm at the time, and after waiting some amount of time, the citizens left without knowing what the outcome of the session was.

This is simply more excuse-making behavior of the judiciary and the executive branch to make excuses for the administrators of our public boards and commissions that are required by law to follow FOIA laws.

We have had many examples of this behavior and other behaviors recently, from the Martese Johnson case, to the recent Virginia Supreme Court ruling that effectively removed what was understood as the duty of the government to redact portions of records they deem to be under one of the exemptions provided for by law.

The Governor himself has given lip service all along about transparency, and it is striking how this flies in the face of his own administration surrounding these issues. From criminal investigations to materials in those investigations, even families of victims have been forced to sue their own government to obtain what otherwise should be an easy request.

It’s pretty simple really. Quit inserting your own opinions of the law and people’s actions surrounding it by legal means, or give up your job, because you are certainly not fulfilling your job description and promises you made when becoming a public servant.

After all, you promised us that you would abide by all the laws, not just the ones you like or agree with. That’s the real message here.

 

Advertisements

What does Charlottesville candidate Michael Signer have to say about transparency in government?

We may not know, because Signer’s Twitter feed is “private”, just like the information was about Martese Johnson and the ABC officers who bloodied him.

The report clearing the ABC officers was not released and the “prohibition” of release has become an embarrassment. Information is not “prohibited” from being released, it is in the control of the custodian of records.

It was finally released when the Governor claimed all “releases” had been granted. Personnel policy is once again being used to hide illegal actions.

Over to you, Mike.

signer twitter

Transparency is great, said the politicians trying to limit transparency

Recent decisions have shown citizens that transparency is a myth propagated by politicians in order to placate the masses.

The news that the Supreme Court of Virginia made the decision to not provide records relating to the Virginia death penalty is the latest death knell for a law that was intended to make government more accessible, more “open.”

You don’t need to look far to see violations of the idea and the law of the Freedom of Information Act. Every week, sometimes every day, a report or other information is denied for release, often with an explanation that defies the law itself.

If the law in the Commonwealth can’t be followed regarding this, isn’t that the same as the justification for wanting the freedom of the information in the first place? If our government does not follow the very law written for these purposes, shouldn’t we wonder what other laws they have decided not to follow?

Governor, Counsel misstate Virginia Code to cover up ABC report

Acting as if they had never heard of or seen the fact that information could be redacted, Terry McAuliffe and an official attorney both misstated the code concerning the release of information to the public on a radio show, Patrick Wilson of the Pilot has reported.

Governor claims exemption appropriate in ABC case

If the top officials in the state don’t know or would cover their employees by misstating code, what else would they do to keep secrets? Have they considered redacting this information?

Wilson reported that the two officials both said it was due to not being able to release personal information of the agents involved.

Friday FOIA: Let’s talk about de facto state employee immunity under FOIA

There are cases in the Commonwealth that allowed state employees to retire on full pension, in favor of not prosecuting crime(s) or releasing information to the public.

Is this the true purpose of Virginia’s FOIA laws? I don’t think so.