RSS

Monthly Archives: June 2009

FOIA DCR Christiansburg and Erosion & Sediment: an example of FOIA

30 Jun

What discussion of the FOIA would be worth its salt without a decent example? Not this one….this one has an example.

This is a quest for information that began with a statement made by the Town Manager to the Christiansburg Town Council on December 16, 2008. The comment can be found in the Discussions by Mayor and Council Members section of the Minutes of that meeting:

2. An ordinance amending Chapter 10 “Erosion and Sediment Control” of the  Christiansburg Town Code. Manager Terpenny explained that the State periodically reviews our Code, and due to minor changes in definitions in State Code, was  advised that this amendment is necessary to bring our Code into line with State Code. Councilman Wade made a motion to approve the ordinance amendment as recommended, seconded by Councilman Barber. Council voted as follows: AYES: Barber, Carter, Showalter, Stipes, Vanhoozier, Wade. NAYS: None.

Several days later (and several times since), I have asked for a copy of that document. I was told that the ordinance is still being written. It would appear from this information that Town Council actual voted on and approved a non-existent ordinance concerning Erosion and Sediment Control.

Despite multiple requests to the Town and being told that the ordinance was being written, I decided to do a bit of further research. I contacted DCR (Dept. of Conservation and Recreation).

Now, those people have really got it together when it comes to access to public records. They did a superb job in handling my requests, providing the documents I requested quickly and thoroughly, and where I had requested documents that they did not have, they told me who was responsible for those documents and where to obtain them. THAT is a ‘gold star’ FOIA response in my book!!!

Anyway, the results of my FOIA request can be found on the Special Studies page of MyVAResources.com (or if you’re in a hurry go directly to the document, it is a fairly large pdf file). This is the Report following a DCR review of Christiansburg’s Erosion and Sediment Control Program. The first page is a summary with more information following in the document. This first page is entitled: Corrective Action Agreement, Town of Christiansburg, Erosion & Sediment Control Program, March 19, 2009. Note that is the dte of the corrective action. The minutes indicate this was brought before Town Council on December 16, 2008. The town manager signed the agreement to complete the corrective actions (by Sept. 15, 2009). The review of the program by DCR was conducted October 21 & 22, 2008.

I must admit that I am a bit puzzled by what appears to have been Town Council voting on something that didn’t exist, or else I have been denied access to public records. I have asked multiple people, including some of the Town Council members about this document, but I have only been told that it is being written. Sometimes, strange things happen when FOIA requests are concerned.

This would have gone unnoticed by me if it were not for the fact that we have the FOIA and I took the time to learn how to use it. See more information about the Town of Christiansburg and the FOIA at http://www.vaopengov.org Citizen Initiative for Transparency Study Report.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on June 30, 2009 in Citizen Participation, Environment, FOIA, Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Using FOIA resources can save you money!

28 Jun

What would happen if you went to the Town/City/County in Virginia where you live and you asked for certain documents, and you were told that the they could not give you the documents that you requested.

  1. You could do one of several things in response:
  2. You could walk away and just give up. (Free)
  3. You could  read the FOIA codes for yourself to see if you should get access to those documents. (Free)
  4. You could contact the Virginia Coalition for Open Government and request they provide you with some guidance. (Free)
  5. You could contact the Virginia FOIA Advisory Council for an opinion. (Free)
  6. You could simply contact an attorney to see if legal action is appropriate. (Fees are often charged for that initial contact just to find out if you have a case.)

Let us assume you make the decision to get some research done before you invest any money in attorney fees. You take the steps to contact either #4 or #5 above, giving them ALL of the information you can on your situation. Either one (or both) come back with information that reveals that you do not have the right to access to what you have requested. Now, you at least know what you can or cannot do, and it has cost you no more than a little time.

On the other hand, if #4, #5, or both of them advise you that you do have the right to that information, you may now wish to proceed to an attorney and pursue legal actions to obtain the records that you request.

There is one very good reason to do your homework before you jump into a ‘writ of mandamus’ seeking a Court order to have your jurisdiction give you the requested information (provided at the Marion Brechner Citizen Access Project website):

Definition: Attorneys’ Fees, Requestors (Public Records)

Capsule:

If a court finds a public body violated the open records law by denying the inspection of a record, the requester of the record shall be entitled to recover “reasonable” attorney’s fees from the public body. The fees are to be awarded if the requester “substantially” prevails unless special circumstances would make an award “unjust.” A court may, among other things, consider the reliance of a public body on an opinion of the attorney general or a decision of a court that “substantially” supports the public body’s position. VA. CODE ANN. § 2-3713.D (2007).

In other words, if the jurisdiction has violated FOIA, you have the right to have the jurisdiction pay your legal fees. The Court does have the right to evaluate those fees and, if you have gotten a bit exorbinate, hiring Benjamin A. Civilette, whose rate is $1000.00 per hour, I think you can count on the Court reducing the awarded amount substantially.

By using the Virginia Coalition for Open Government website’s Opinions section, you can find out if there are any cases similar that the jurisdiction could be basing their argument on, thus finding  out if there are any cases where the jurisdiction was “substantially supported” in a similar case.

Doing these things will certainly not guarantee that you get your legal costs reimbursed, but you can increase the likelihood of that happening. A little bit of homework could save you a lot of money!

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on June 28, 2009 in FOIA

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

City of Virginia Beach: An example of Government and FOIA working together.

27 Jun

During these last few days of FOIA coverage, I would be remiss if I didn’t take a few minutes to talk about some of the positive steps that I have found where a local government is really working to insure the FOIA is used in their jurisdiction. The City of Virginia Beach is one such jurisdiction.

The City of Virginia Beach formed a committee to assess Internet Access of Public Information. The report they generated is available online and provides a good example of how government can work with citizens and the FOIA to help keep people informed. Although the study focuses on Real Estate issues, it is certainly a format that could be applied in a multitude of areas where the FOIA is concerned.

As with any legitimate study, they looked at the pros and cons, and they looked at what other jurisdictions were doing in order to develop recommendations for their City to apply. Their recommendation include a wide range and even allows for those businesses that utilize that data to be the ones to carry the greater financial burden, rather than taxpayers. The option would provide some special features for those businesses that use the system fairly extensively, but would be a pay option.

One of the interesting things I found was the part of the report where it was noted that under the FOIA, there are more things required to be posted online when the jurisdiction has a website where they conduct routine business. Under this portion of the law, it would appear that the jurisdiction could have what is essentially an advertising website and would not be required to post public documents on the website.

It is this last that brought to my mind the rationale used by Town of Christiansburg government for having a website and the capabilities to handle bill paying online for about 10 years and never utilizing it. Of course, now, the software they purchased for handling online payments is obsolete and new software would have to be purchased in order to add the ‘bill pay online option.

So, taxpayer money was spent to buy software that was never used, that is now worthless, and more taxpayer money will need to be invested if bill paying online is ever to be available for Christiansburg residents. Not only is it the loss of taxpayer money for the purchase of the program, other tax money was essentially thrown away. What was spent in mailing costs, paper, printing, copying, envelopes , staff time, etc. was lost as there was no paperless option available for bills to be sent out automatically via email, or available to citizens through the website, and payments to have been made on the website. Now, in order to save some of that money, the Town will have to purchase new software and start over.

A friend of mine once told me nobody does something for nothing. In this case it rather looks like the Town made a ‘show’ of responding to citizens by setting up a dead website and buying software. Rather than have to post all of those documents online and have them readily accessible to citizens, they elected to let the ‘pay on line’ option and the ‘website’ all but die of neglect. Was it really worth all of that taxpayer money to keep from having to post meeting notices, agendas, minutes, and other public documents online? If so, why? Who benefited while citizens lost? Gotta wonder!

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on June 27, 2009 in FOIA

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

The Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council.

25 Jun

The Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council is a State of Virginia agency that focuses on Freedom of Information Issues. This source is available to individuals, public officials and the media. They also serve by providing advisory opinions which are published and are a searchable internet resource for anyone with a FOIA question.

Their Advisory Opinions section can be viewed in chronological order or in a searchable database. The chronological order is a good way to review recent trends (if any) while the searchable option allows you to look for a specific topic. Using searchable, I checked under the word “erosion” and found this neat bit of information indicating that when an investigation is performed related to land-disturbing activities where the ‘owner’ has violated some form of the erosion and sediment control laws, the name of the complaintant does not have to be released by the investigating agent. That information can be withheld as part of the records causing the investigation.

Another interesting find there was under the search for “Planning Commission”. This involved the presence of Town Council members at a Planning Commission Meeting who participated in the discussion about business upon which they would likely have to act in the future. In this case, the meeting should have been advertised as a Joint Public Hearing. Another part of the question answered dealt with the appointment of Town Council Members on Planning Commission Subcommittees. Some interesting discussion is found in the document, and some good ideas of what is and is not allowed to happen in public meetings.

Another good one I found deals with Committee Meetings (notice and minutes) and FOIA violations that occurred involving this. The discussion is thorough and sites relevant FOIA laws concerning notice requirements of all committees. It further clarifies that any committee or group formed to perform a delegated function or to advise the town is subject to FOIA. Regular meetings, special, and emergency meetings all require notices. That notice time frame is a minimum of 3 WORKING days (excluding the date of the meeting as well as holidays and weekends) for regular meetings, and at the same time that members of the group are notified of special and emergency meetings. In addition, anyone who has requested notice of meetings should have been noticed. Requesters of notices can be contacted through email or telephone if the requestor agrees to this. (So if you are someone who wants to be noticed, you can get it through the mail, or you could ask the town to call you instead – it is not required that they provide this service but it may be something they will consider for people who do not have internet access but have requested notification and the timeframe is such that mail service just would not work). It also clarifies another question that I have been asked recently. The committees themselves are not required to take minutes except where membership of the committee includes a majority of the governing body.

So there ya have it. A great resource to look up information on FOIA that may be of particular interest to you. If you have a question about the way a meeting was conducted, whether or not you were allowed to be in the meeting, what documents you have a legal right to obtain or view, here is one good place to find an answer.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on June 25, 2009 in FOIA

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

What can FOIA mean to you? Here is one example concerning stormwater in Christiansburg, VA

24 Jun

Well, that will depend upon what area your interest direct you to
explore. For instance, over a year ago, I did a FOIA request of the
Town of Christiansburg for Minutes of Town Council and planning
Commission Meeting Minutes from 2001 through 2008. I received all of
the Town Council minutes and some of the Planning Commission minutes.

Rather
than have to dig through those documents when I have a question or am
looking for a pattern, I scanned them and set them up as searchable
.pdf documents. This gave me a fairly useful tool for allowing my mind
to wander.

For instance when searches were done on stormwater and flood/flooding:

Did you know that from July through December of 2001, there was no mention of any of those words in the Town Council Minutes.

In the 2002 calendar year, there were 18 instances where stormwater/flood/flooding issues were addressed with the Town Council.

In the 2003 calendar year, there were 12 instances where stormwater/flood/flooding issues were addressed with the Town Council.

In the 2004 calendar year, there were 3 instances where stormwater/flood/flooding issues were addressed with the Town Council.

In the 2005 calendar year, there was 1 instance where stormwater/flood/flooding issues were addressed with the Town Council.

In the 2006 calendar year, there were 3 instances where stormwater/flood/flooding issues were addressed with the Town Council.

In the 2007 calendar year, there were 2 instances where stormwater/flood/flooding issues were addressed with the Town Council.

In the 2008 calendar year, there were 5 instances where stormwater/flood/flooding issues were addressed with the Town Council.

Now,
I will be looking at these much more closely for a future report but
what is abundandently clear is the fact that most of these
‘discussions’ came from citizens who were suffering the negative
effects of stormwater/flood/flooding.

There were a few
occasions, during times when ‘stormwater’ was made a major issue by
citizens, that stormwater was brought up by Council members in relation
to rezoning/development issues.

I will note that during the time
that Mayor Linkous was in office, these issues were brought up more
frequently, and the people bringing them up during those times were:
Mr. Ballengee, Mr. Barber, and Mrs. Carter. Also, it should be noted
that the large ‘growth spurt’ which generated massive amounts of
impervious surfaces began around 2005.

Many of the areas
mentioned in the minutes are still having problems with
stormwater/flood/flooding (as noted in the recent flooding problems
reported in Christiansburg.

So I found some information. What
good is it? Well, by itself, it isn’t much. If you take the time to
make use of some of the other documents open to the public, you can
begin to get a bit of the bigger picture. These other documents are
found on the internet and include things like the latest DCR provided
rules and regulations for stormwater management (comparing that to the
Town of Christiansburg Code has been a real experience!) and the
various State Codes specific to stormwater management and flooding.

What
is troublesome is the number of times that Town Council members heard
about citizen fear of stormwater issues related to new development and
went ahead and approved the development with the understanding that the
Town Manager would make sure that all was done correctly to insure
safety. This is the same Town Manager would couldn’t manage to upgrade
the Town’s Storm Water Ordinance.

At the 3/4/2003 Town Council
meeting then Councilman Ballengee specifically asked about any problems
related to recent heavy rains. The Town Manager noted that there had
been minor flooding and minor road destruction and that all reports
were handled according to Town procedure. There does not appear to be
any further discussion of what this “Town procedure” might have been.

One
quickly gets the same impression from those historic minutes that one
can get from recent Town Council minutes. That impression is that the
Town Council hears about issues, the Mayor trustingly hands the issue
over to the Town Manager, and no further discussion ensues.

At
the most recent Town Council Meeting, I specifically asked Council what
was being done to keep the flooding from reoccurring. The question was
fielded by the Mayor and passed off to the Town Manager who simply
responded that the flooding was being investigated. Nothing was offered
to report that any steps were being taken to deal with the issue and
yet town work crews have been seen in multiple locations trying to pump
out the accumulated silt and debris from storm drains. Routine
inspection and maintenance? If there is such a thing within the Town,
then has that schedule been modified as the amount of silt and debris
from construction sites have multiplied? Are we still doing things the
way we have for the last 30 years? Personally, I’ve never seen this
type of work performed before, but I’ve only been living here for the
last 10 years and I have not been watching every storm drain every
minute of every day:)

One thing I will say is that I have the
utmost respect for those workers who are doing the job. They are not
the ones who created the problems. They were not the “DECIDER”
determining what constituted a problem with runoff from sites or
whether proper measures were taken to curb that runoff before it got
into the system and created problems. They are simply the ones who have
to clean up other people’s messes.

Nope, I haven’t been off
the FOIA topic here. I’ve just given an example of how anybody can use
that information that he/she has the right to obtain. There are a lot
of other examples out there. You can start looking at some of them on
my citizen’s information website MyVAResources.com. Or take a closer look at how the FOIA process has worked in Christiansburg at the Citizen Initiative for Transparency site.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on June 24, 2009 in FOIA, Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Ever wonder what Virginia Courts have ruled in FOIA cases? Or, how FOIA is being changed?

23 Jun

Well, the Virginia Coalition for Open Government is THE place to look. There are 3 blue squares at the top of their screen labeled: Virginia’s FOIA, In the News, and …Etc. Directly under each of these is a description of the offerings held there. Under Virginia’s FOIA there is one section on FOIA opinions from state courts. Click on “Court Opinions” in the dropdown menu and you will be provided with a list of Court opinion links.

Perhaps one of the best know current issues involves BJ Ostergren where it was ruled the person could continue to publish the Social Security numbers of prominent persons, but not private ones. This was done by Ostergren to protest the laws allowing land records containing full social security numbers to be published on the interenet. (One of those good for the goose, good for the gander moments!)

Another link under the Virginia’s FOIA is the 2009 Legislative Roundup. Here is where you can see bills that newly activated, are in front of the Governor for signing, or at the legislature being worked on, that will affect FOIA and your rights.

The Fraud and Abuse Whistle Blower Protection Act – this serves to protect employees that report Fraud and Abuse (bet you figured that out by the title, eh?) Unfortunately, it sees to only apply to people employed by the State. It includes a long list of records that are excluded from FOIA as part of that process. These are specific to the investigation involved and the records that would normally be available to the public are not affected.
Remote access to land records: Prince William County may establish a pilot program assessing fee. This newly adopted Act provides for charges to be attached to the online records by the general public. Not only is there a fee for viewing, there is an additional fee to download images similar to the existing copying fee. (If the internet was suppose to help people get easier access, this one is a real slap in the face to citizens. Sure, all those companies that access these types of things can afford the related fees. Not all citizens can do so. One of the things already keeping people away from documents is the cost. This looks like a great way to insure that big business gets the information that many citizens cannot afford. Healing the digital divide by making information available while then turning around and setting it up so that it replaced by an economical divide is one giant step backwards. One of the biggest reasons to use the internet is because often citizens do not know what it is that they need. It can require hours of looking at information. Having it available on the internet means that that can be accomplished without tying up employees to help for hours or even days at a time, helping the person. How is it saving money, or generating revenue, to charge for something that is saving worker time and money (paper, ink, copy machines all become the cost of the person/group looking rather than the taxpayer). I personally hope this one is put to the curb after the trial period, or significant modifications are made to insure that ALL citizens, regardless of income level, have the same degree of access. A sliding scale fee comes to mind. Ironically, the required report on this pilot study only requires a summary of the level of participation, costs, and revenues. Nothing is in place to determine who now finds themselves without access or how much has been saved in personnel and processing by having the data online in the first place.
Expenditures; annual report thereof provided by school board to be made available to public.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That § 22.1-90 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows:

§ 22.1-90. Annual report of expenditures.

Every school board shall submit at least once each year to the governing body or bodies appropriating funds to the school board a report of all its expenditures. Such report shall also be made available to the public either on the official school division website, if any, or in hard copy at the central school division office, on a template prescribed by the Board of Education.

That is just a sample of some of the information you can find on this website. More discussion is coming. In the meantime, look for yourself. Don’t count on someone just telling you the way things are…check out the facts. (Darn, there I go again, slipping into that Christiansburg Town Council area again. Just wait until after July 4th! I’ve got a lot of time to make up and a lot of articles ready to be posted.)

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on June 23, 2009 in FOIA

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Virgina FOIA Evaluation … more on the low scores.

23 Jun

The University of Florida plays host to the Marion Brechner Citizen Access Project. This is another one of those sites that evaluates states on the basis of how much ‘sunshine or shade’ exist in the government. You can look at the information on a particular state, compare two states or look at one category of the law over all 50 states.

While I was going through all the offerings of this site, I found something so simple that I had overlooked it previously. As I am now in the stage of discussing Virginia FOIA, I thought it might be worth discussing now: the definition of Public Records. This site gives the following definition of Public Records in Virginia:
The Virginia Freedom of Information Act defines “public records” to mean all writings and recordings that consist of letters, words or numbers, or their equivalent, set down by handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostatting, photography, magnetic impulse, optical or magneto-optical form, mechanical or electronic recording or other form of data compilation, however stored, and regardless of physical form or characteristics, prepared or owned by, or in the possession of a public body or its officers, employees or agents in the transaction of public business. Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-3701 (2002).

Some interesting features arise when you look at the State of Virginia and how it scored on public access of records. The site uses a scale of 7 to evaluate these.

7 = Sunny – completely open
6 = Mostly Sunny – mostly open
5 = Sunny with clouds – somewhat open
4 = Partly Cloudy – neither more open nor more closed
3 = Cloudy – somewhat closed
2 = Nearly Dark – mostly closed
1 = Dark – completely closed

Some of the lowest scores for Virginia included:

  • Political caucuses of state legislature which are not considered to be openmeetings
  • Hardware and Software Requirements:  policy-makers protect public access to computers when designing government computer sytems
  • Internet, Regulation of Professionals: information about the licensing or regulation of doctors, lawyers, etc. be online
  • Private Schools: no reference to private schools exists within open records laws.

Of particular interest to me was the score of 3 (Cloudy – somewhat closed) on Open Meetings, Informatl Meeting (Public Meetings) that I believe serves as a major loophole for government to circumvent the right of citizens to know.

The gathering of employees of a public body shall not be deemed a “meeting” when the purpose of such a gathering does not include the discussion or transaction of any public business and the meeting was not called or prearranged with this purpose. VA. Code Ann. § 2.2-3701, Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-3707 (G) (i) (2007).

Okay, so 3 or 4 Town Council Members meeting to go for long walks or work out together at the Rec Center, when no one else is around are likely to avoid discussing business? Come on…give me a break. All they would have to do to prevent any sense of impropriety would be to be sure that someone else was there????

Forgive me. I digress. I said I would write about FOIA through July 4th, not the Town of Christiansburg, but the Town of Christiansburg government IS subject to FOIA. If state FOIA laws need to be changed in order to prevent this type of perception, then so be it.

It should be noted that out of all the 50 states, Virginia is 7th highest on this score. None of the states scored more than Partly Cloudy (neither more open nor more closed). Nebraska’s law has a bit more strength when it specifically says:

Informal meetings, chance meetings and social gatherings “shall” not be used for the purpose of circumventing the Open Meetings Act. Neb.Rev.St. § 84-1410 (4) (2006).

South Carolina expands on this:

No chance meeting, social meeting, or electronic communication may be used in “circumvention of the spirit of requirements” of the open meetings requirements to act upon a matter over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power. Code 1976 § 30-4-70 (c) (2007).

Nebraska and South Carolina are the highest scoring states in this category. The lowest scoring states (Nearly Dark) are Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, and Mississippi.

To get back to Virginia FOIA law itself, our resident experts are (in my opinion) the Virginia Coalition for Open Government. In particular, a great starting place for learning about FOIA and what it can mean to you as a citizen, they post a FOI Citizens’ Guide online. They have a lot of other useful and necessary information available that I will discuss more in following articles.

The FOI Citizens’ Guide provides an overview of the rights of citizens including direct links to the relevant state codes. It also provides information on how to enforce your rights. Take some time to check out this site and while you’re wandering around on the internet, you might want to check out the Citizen Initiative for Transparency site that is now available. You may find some interesting links and resources there as well.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on June 23, 2009 in Citizen Participation, FOIA

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Open Government Issues around the Nation and Within the State

22 Jun

I spent some more time on the Sunshine Review site mentioned in my last blog and found an interesting area where news is provided that relates to open government and the FOIA: The Sunshine Review – The Bad News. Again, this is a work in progress to which anyone with computer access can contribute. Even though this first page of the section deals with national issues, Bedford County School System seems to be the hottest topic around.

At the bottom of the page, you’ll find a list of states and by clicking on Virginia, you will be taken to a list of the myriad of issues related to government accountability within the State of Virginia. Although labeled The Bad News (and there is a lot of that covered), you can also find some bright spots like this Jan. 17, 2009 entry:

Secrecy breeds distrust

“The most refreshing change in Franklin city government over the past six months has been the City Council’s emphasis on openness, transparency and accessibility.

That collective spirit has begun to restore the broken trust between citizens and City Hall that manifest itself in the May election, when two newcomers running on a platform of greater citizen involvement scored runaway victories.

The City Council’s challenge now is to demonstrate that openness is an ongoing commitment, not an election-year show.”

I will end on that note and hope that more such reports will be found in the future. “Broken Trust” is a long festering wound throughout all levels of government. It will take time to restore. YOU can help speed the process by being an active participant in government. Good government merely begins in the voting booth. Like a garden, it must be carefully tended to be productive. Plant those seeds in the voting booth, but then be prepared to follow through with monitoring and intervening when necessary to grow a good, healthy, and responsive government.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on June 22, 2009 in FOIA

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Virginia is one of the top10 states when it comes to transparency!

20 Jun

This bit of information comes from something called the Sunshine Review‘s SunshineOnline webpage – The My Government Website Project. This is a wiki-based project where information is available on government WEBSITE transparency for states but including county, city and school districts. It is a work in progress, with more data coming in all the time. It encourages citizen participation by having citizens do the evaluations (available on their website). It is a fairly simple process and is fully explained. Although they place the State of Virginia within the top 10 states for open government, DO NOT assume that status holds for all jurisdictions within the state.

Interesting information about Virginia Counties includes based upon this sites evaluative criteria:
Only 3 counties do not maintain an official website: Craig, Lee, and Mecklenburg.
Of the 95 counties and 39 city counties (which are included at this source)
Budgets: 35 post full, 32 post partial, and 25 post no information
Public Meetings Notices: 42 include all notices of public meetings, 42 provide partial information, and 8 provided no information.
Information on elected and administrative officials: 74 provide all information on both sets of officials; 14 provided only partial information on elected officials, and 17 only partial on administrative officials. Only 1 county provided neither.
Permits and zoninginformation: 77 provided all, 5 provided partial, and 10 provided none.
Audits: 38 provided all information, 10 provided partial, and 44 provided none.
Contract with county vendors: 13 provided full information, 26 provided partial, and 53 provided none.
Disclosure on taxpayer-funding lobbying membership: 19 provided full information, 0 provided partial, and 73 provided no such information.
How to request public records (FOIA): 6 provided full information, 12 provided partial, and 74 provided none.
Tax information: 66 provided all, 9 provided partial information, 17 provided none.

A table providing information on each individual county for the above parameters is available at one of their links. A quick look and I saw that the data might not be current. One of the recent changes to Virginia State Law is that jurisdictions with a website are now required to post budgets online. If you live in or work for one of these jurisdictions, it may be worth the effort to go to the site where you can update information. As I noted previously, this is a work in progress and is being updated. YOU can be a part of the process.

All of these are based on those documents which are part of the public’s right to know and are covered under the FOIA. If you wish access to any of these documents, a FOIA request should provide it for you. Given that each FOIA request cost taxpayer time and money to receive, research, and produce the request, and the fact that most jurisdictions barely have the staff to handle routine business, it would seem that more jurisdictions would put forth a dedicated effort to provide these documents on their websites, saving money and reducing staff workloads for other projects.

They do not provide information on towns in Virginia, but I have a very reliable source indicating that there is something similar being developed for the Towns of Christiansburg as well. However, would it be needed at all if the State Legislature would simply develop standards that denote these basic documents be posted on all websites. One little statute would end the problem, save money, and free up worker time.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on June 20, 2009 in FOIA

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Freedom of Information at State levels…Well, it is not level.

19 Jun

Freedom of Information Act Birthday is July 4, 2009.

If you have been reading this series of articles, you may have picked up some new information on FOIA at the Federal level. Few people’s daily lives are directly affected by the Federal FOIA. However, each state has its own version of FOIA, and that can bring the issue right into your yard (both literally and figuratively).

One thing becomes crystal clear when you take the time to compare the various acts of the states. Federal FOIA is equal for everyone across the nation. The State FOIA (or whatever name they choose for their open government laws) may be equal for everyone within the state, but the differences between states are significant! If you are considering moving to another state in the future, you may want to take a few minutes to look at how that state compares to where you currently live as it pertains to your right to access of public records.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press provides a comprehensive tool for doing just that, and it is available on the internet for free! This tool is the Open Government Guide.

For instance:
Court invalidation of decisions:

  • The State of Florida clearly gives the courts the authority to invalidate any actions taken while a meeting was held in violaiton of the Sunshine Law.
  • The State of Virginia does not address this issue.

Interviews for public employment:

  • The State of Florida provides no exemption for interviews.
  • The State of Virginia allows that prospective appointees may meet in closed session, but the appointment itself must be public.

Penalties for failure to give adequate notice:

  • The State of Florida considers this “irreparable public injury”. All decisions are voided. No finding of intent is required and one the violation has been “established, prejudice is presumed”. Those public officials in attendance may be fined or criminal charges pursued.
  • In the State of Virginia, the standard penalties under FOIA apply. Thus, Statute 2.2-3714 applies. It must be proved that the violation was willfully and knowingly made each individual can be fined from $250 to $1000 for first violation and from $1000 to $2500 for additional events. This money goes to the State Literary Fund.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press also provides ongoing coverage of FOIA cases and law changes across the nation (we’ll get to Virginia specific soon:) If you want to find out more about the Senate passing a bill to withhold torture photos, you’ll find a link here. In Florida a case is in progress whereby the National Collegiate Athletic Association has tried to keep information unreleased that pertains to academic scandal sanctions.

You get the general idea. Watching what is happening in different states concerning those state freedom of information laws, can tell you a lot about how much the lawmakers care about openness in government or secrecy of the same.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on June 19, 2009 in Citizen Participation, FOIA

 

Tags: , , , ,

← Older posts