RSS

Tag Archives: foia

See the Ordinance change for the Floodplain Districts.

I finally got a chance to do a bit more work on the ‘myvaresources.com’ citizen webpage (home to all things Christiansburg related to government).

Along with a bit of a face lift (still working), you can find a copy of the proposed Zoning Amendment related to FloodPlain Districts that will be part of the Public Hearing on August 4th Town Council Meeting. There is also a video of the August 3rd Planning Commission Meeting (a good thing to watch if you ever want to apply for one of those positions.

I will keep working on this site and adding to it when I can find time. Unfortunately, one of the side effects of doing this is that I now have 5 web pages to manage (with a possible 6th coming soon) and they all pay the same … nothing. I have to try to earn a living in between the web work. These pages are not perfect and I always welcome suggestions for change. Please remember that I have only been doing this for a year now and have had no training in how to build and maintain websites. I know of a lot of mistakes that I found and corrected. There are probably that many more that I have not noticed yet. But, heck, it’s still not a bad deal since it is done for free:)

Hope to see you at the Town Council Meeting!

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on August 4, 2009 in FOIA, Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Erosion & Sediment Control Corrective Action Required in Christiansburg Part 2

Beginning on page 3 of pdf created from the document received from DCR addressed in Part 1 of this series (Department of Conservation and Recreation) is the “LOCAL ESC PROGRAM REVIEW CHECKLIST”. Four different program areas are evaluated: Administration, Plan Review, Inspection & Enforcement.

Let me make it clear at the onset that this checklist includes a combination of things that are Minimally required, Recommended practices, or deal with ‘optional items’ where the criteria MUST be met if these ‘optional items’ are utilized by the Town.

In Part I: Administration the Town’s performance looks pretty good until you get to page 6 where the NO’s start coming in or what appear to be recommended steps:

  • Plan review/land disturbance fees are enough to enable local ESC program to be fully self-sufficient
  • Locality has developed an ESC plan/Permit application package that includes a standard application form and user-friendly instructions for conducting land-disturbing activities.
  • Project start and finish.

These results rather lead one to the impressions:

  • That taxpayer money is having to be used to support the costs of the ESC (Erosion and Sediment Control) rather than having the person doing the land disturbing cover that cost.
  • That without a standard application form and user-friendly instructions it is possible for ‘arbitrary and capricious’ behaviors to be perceived even if not true and that misunderstandings could occur between the person completing the application and the town.
  • That the failure to include start and finish dates of projects could potentially leave projects “in development” or hanging around for decades.

Ultimately, this speaks to the issue of what happens when the focus is only on meeting MINIMUM requirements of State Code. The reason for establishing MINIMUM requirements is because there is such diversity in topography, soil types, and absorption rates, this leaves jurisdictions with the flexibility to ADD to these minimum standards in a way that best serves its citizens. It is not a law saying that ONLY those minimum standards must be met. It is a starting place, common ground, from which the Town should be building its ordinances to protect citizens and the environment.

In Part II: Plan Review there were also a few NO’s.

  • Maintenance agreements for permanent facilities are required for plan approval.
  • Plan preparers and plan reviewers use the minimum standard and plan review checklists and the checklists are maintained in the project file.
  • When plan review is provided by s SWCD or other outside source, the plan reviewer meets with the inspector(s) prior to commencement of land disturbing activity.
  • Lot by lot grading plans are required for plan approval of subdivision projects.

Again, this section speaks primarily to how the Town of Christiansburg prefers to meet the minimum standards. All of the NO’s above were related to recommended items. The Maintenance of permanent facilities for stormwater management is a requirement. Now whether it is done by the Town, agreed to by the developer, or falls upon the shoulders of the property owner is not clearly defined at the early stages of the process and could become a ‘bone of contention’ later on. The Lot by Lot grading plans would insure that criteria are met for each indivudal lot, thus preventing issues arising in the future where grading on one lot could have a negative affect on another lot if the parcel is taken as a whole.

In Part III: Inspection, there were some NO’s and some of these are required. The required articles are denoted by bold print.

  • Inspections are conducted during or immediately following initial installation of erosion and sediment controls.
  • Inspection frequency satisfies the requirement
  • Inspection documentation includes deadlines for correcting violations and notes on verbal or written communication with responsible party.
  • ECS measures are repaired and maintained
  • Sites visited during the program review process are consistent with the applicable VESCR Minimum Standards
  • The responsible party is required to submit monitoring reports to the plan-approving or permit-issuing authority.
  • As-built documentation is required for all permanent SWM facilities installed to meet Minimum Standard 19.

This is a highly relevant component of the entire process. The Town Council can vote on and pass ordinances all day long such as the erosion & sediment control ordinance discussed here. But! Exactly what use is an ordinance if it is not followed up on by inspections? These inspections are a crucial component in making sure that things are being done correctly and that future problems can be averted (the state code even allows for modification of plans should problems arise during the process. All the Plans and Enforcement in the world are wasted (including taxpayer money to support those activities) if the necessary inspections are not being done!

In Part IV: Enforcement there were only two (2) NO’s and both were recommended rather than required.

  • Locality has disseminated an enforcement policy to the development community.
  • Locality has developed a schedule of civil charges/administrative fines.

Beginning on page 10 and continuing through page 34 you can find the reviews of specific land disturbing sites. However, on page 35 is the Local Program Overall Rating which shows why the Corrective Action Agreement was warranted (a minimum of 70 points is required):

Available
Points
Earned
Points
Program Area
100 98 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
100 85 PLAN REVIEW
100 55 INSPECTION
100 80 ENFORCEMENT

This one sure doesn’t take a brain surgeon or an engineer to figure it out. It is a simple 4 step process. Only in this case, one of the steps is inadequate. The scenario is not unlike sitting in a chair with one broken leg. So long as you maintain perfect balance and don’t move, you’ll be just fine as long as your muscles hold out. Sooner or later though, you’re going to get tired, a muscle will spasm…and BAM! You’re gonna hit the floor.

I’m still wondering if any of the Town Council members were aware of this report. I know that some were not until Tuesday night.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on July 8, 2009 in Environment, FOIA, Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

FOIA makes it possible for you to know….but why is it important that you know?

Why would people want to know about their government and the decisions that are made by government for them?  The answer to that has nothing to do with the FOIA. Rather, the FOIA is something that may have been strongly influenced by the very drive that people have to want to know the answers to questions that they have.

Think about it for a minute. How many times would you return to a doctor who’s responses were “Yes, you are sick but I have some medicine to make you better.” Me, I would have a few little questions to ask: (1) If I’m sick, what is the ‘sickness’ called? (2) Is it a terminal, chronic, or short term illness? (3) Are the symptoms I have now likely to get better or worse? Will I get new symptoms also? (4) What is the prognosis? (5) This medicine you want to give me, how will it affect me? (6) Are there any other treatment options?

When you talk to your doctor, you know that you are talking about things that have a direct effect upon your life and your family. You, quite naturally, want to know a reasonable amount of what the issues are so that you can begin wrapping your brain around how to deal with things. Well, when you talk to government representatives (elected, appointed, or otherwise) about government issues in your area (city, town, county, or country), you are also talking about things that will have an impact upon your life and the lives of your family, friends, neighbors, and other citizens you do not even know.

It only makes sense to me that asking for all the information that you need to feel comfortable with what is going to happen should be a right that you exercise often. In a May 20, 2009 article on the New York Times Opinion Section, Happy Days, The Pursuit of What Matters in Troubled Times, is an blog article by Daniel Gilbert, What You Don’t Know Makes You Nervous.

The author discusses some of the current issues facing Americans and some historical eras that are similar to what is faced today. Then, he moves into addressing what it is that people are ‘really’ upset about. In paragraph 8 of the blog article, he begins to identify the real culprit:

That’s because people feel worse when something bad might occur than when something bad will occur. Most of us aren’t losing sleep and sucking down Marlboros because the Dow is going to fall another thousand points, but because we don’t know whether it will fall or not — and human beings find uncertainty more painful than the things they’re uncertain about.

Then in the last paragraph, he sums up this theme again:

Our national gloom is real enough, but it isn’t a matter of insufficient funds. It’s a matter of insufficient certainty. Americans have been perfectly happy with far less wealth than most of us have now, and we could quickly become those Americans again — if only we knew we had to.

This ‘not knowing’ or ‘uncertainty’ can exist in all levels of government. The less people are told, the more they are likely to worry about the possible outcomes. We Americans are a pretty tough group. We have survived bad times, tough economic times, war, internal strife, disease, floods, hurricanes, volcanoes, earthquakes, the untimely loss of some of most beloved citizens, and a myriad of other challenges. I believe we can survive most anything IF WE KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT!

I understand it is not possible for government to give us clear and concise answers on every issue. Where it is possible to do so, then it should be done. Where it is not possible, then simply be honest enough to say that you do not know, but this is what we are doing about the issue.

Keeping people informed helps to keep people grounded in facts NOT in perceptions that may not accurately reflect the facts. Most of us know that elected officials are just as human as the rest of us and can make mistakes. Acknowledging and owning the mistakes allows all of the gossip and rumors to die off and we can all get on with the business of living our lives to the best of our ability.

Most people that know me know that if I am given a few minutes, I could apply Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to eating a tuna fish salad. I am a firm believer in that Hierarchy and the relationship to was I have just discussed is clear.

In Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, there are established levels of ‘Needs’ that most people have in common. These needs begin at a very basic survival level and progress into the very alturistic. The government (whether town, city, county, state, our federal) is directed by the U.S. Constitution to insure certain of these needs: Health, Welfare, Safety & Convenience. (See Wikipedia’s: Supreme Court Case Mugler V. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887)). (See also: Health, Safety, Welfare & Convenience.)

Citizens not only have a right to know, but it is good for them to know, the good and bad of government. Not knowing leads to uncertainty and fear. Those, in turn, lead to misperceptions, rumors, gossip, and misinterpretations. The more open government is the more likely it will be that citizens will come together and strive to work through any problems that we have. Open government IS good government because it reduces the fear and uncertainty.

Happy Birthday to the Freedom of Information Act! As it has grown, it has now become a tool for everyone, not just the media. FOIA helps to keep government open in much the same way putting a lock on a door protects your home. It serves to keep honest people honest. Just as there will be those who will break into your home regardless of the presence of locks, there will be those who will try to keep things ‘hidden’ from the public. Having some safeguards in place (lock on the door, the FOIA) helps to prevent that scenario from becoming the status quo.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on July 3, 2009 in Citizen Participation, FOIA

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Part 2: Discussion on Bacon’s Rebellion and the Thomas Jefferson Institute’s

June 30th Bacon’s Rebellion Blog article “Establishing Transparency’s Bottom Floor for Virginia’s Localities” is a good followup on the THOMAS JEFFERSON INSTITUTE’S TRANSPARENCY PROJECT. It brings home the fact that the internet has provided a wealth of opportunity for citizen involvement and for governments to be open and empowering of citizens. The internet has opened doors for people to be involved in government in ways that were not dreamed of only a few years ago. Suddenly, access is available to more people, limited only by governments’ efforts to provide the information.

However, there are tremendous differences  between how jurisdictions handle this new era of ‘openness’. I have been looking at various websites around the State of Virginia for more than a year now. Some jurisdictions make it incredibly easy for information to be found. Other jurisdictions make finding some information easy and other information more difficult to locate. Still others, offer a lot of self-promotion to encourage the home buyer or business, but the ‘meat and potatoes’ of local government is all but missing in action.

I believe that the last paragraph of that blog clearly identifies some of the opportunities that are before us and within the hands of our lawmakers:
“If all of Virginia’s counties and school boards met these standards we would be a much more informed and aware citizenry, but this is just the tip of the iceberg. Simply following through on these measures, while a significant upgrade over the hodge-podge collection of documents that passes for transparency throughout much of the commonwealth, doesn’t take full advantage of power of the internet. There are a lot of additional things that governments can do that enable their citizens to get much more out of online transparency. From video archives to real time data feeds, innovative governments are making themselves more open and their constituents better informed. Next issue we’ll take a look at what the best practices in this new online world look like.

I am looking forward to that next issue. I have some ideas of my own, first and foremost, that standards should be established for all jurisdictions (state, county, city & TOWN) and that those standards should be developed based, in large part, upon citizen input. Let the people who will be using the devices have a part in determining what is needed, not just the lawmakers. Find out what people want. Oh, yeah. That’s what government is all about anyway, right?

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on July 2, 2009 in FOIA

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Who is watching Transparency in Virginia? (I’m not alone here!)

There’s a kewl blog out there that I read called “Bacon’s Rebellion“. There have been a couple of recent blog articles there that relate to my FOIA focus. (It’s not long before the 4th of July, FOIA’s birthday, will arrive and I will be back on topics of local interest….anybody wondering what my I’ve been working on besides FOIA information:)

Anyway, on June 16, 2009, the blog article “Shining a Spotlight on Transparency” was rolled out. I had to check my audio to be sure I didn’t miss a drum roll because it sure deserved one! The opening two sentences set the tone: The legitimacy of government is based on the consent of the governed. As owners of our state government, every citizen of Virginia is entitled to full and complete information about how their government acts and what their Representatives do.

Wow! That pretty much says it for the backbone of the FOIA at all government levels. WE are the government. Government is not just elected officials and fancy buildings! It is “WE THE PEOPLE”. The government works for us, not the other way around.

The article then goes on to discuss recent events in Federal FOIA and Virginia FOIA. I really like the way that it is pointed out that accessibility to information alone is NOT enough. That information MUST be in a format that citizens can understand. We do not need tools that we can’t use. We need consistently organized, understandable information. Clothing information (or cloaking, if you prefer) in a manner that make it available but not useable is atrocious.

It is further noted, that the THOMAS JEFFERSON INSTITUTE is initiating an awesome project. They will examine the current FOIA practices of jurisdictions and use that data to develop standards and best practices. This concept could bring a degree of uniformity to jurisdictions that would be a tremendous service to citizens. I know that every jurisdiction wants to keep its “individuality” but there is no reason why they can’t do that while still having uniformity in those areas that all jurisdiction have in common. It’s too bad that the study will not include Towns, but perhaps that is coming.

This has particular interest to me as it could apply to the internet. If every jurisdiction used a certain part of their website that was consisten across all jurisdictions but allowed for independence in other parts of the website. It would make it so much easier for citizens. We are becoming such a mobile society, with people moving several times during the course of their lives. If there were some degree of uniformity, it would be so much easier for citizens to access information.

It could also save a ton of taxpayer’s money! Part of the website would be prepackaged saving development costs and making it easier for employees to use. The remainder of the website could be used as the jurisdiction wishes to promote its unique features and events. It would also make it easier and more cost effective for small jurisdictions to have a website.

The article closes with this: By providing usable data governments allow citizens to improve their quality of life and make government more efficient.” What a wonderful concept! Increase efficiency of government while improving citizen access. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

The 2nd of these 2 articles will be discussed tomorrow.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on July 1, 2009 in FOIA

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Focus on the Virginia Coalition for Open Government

Just a couple of years ago, I was pretty darned ignorant on the FOIA. I knew it was there. I had heard it mentioned somewhere along the way, but it had no real meaning for me. As I became interested, I started looking around on the internet. I really do not intend to ‘plug’ one resource over any others, but The Virginia Coalition for Open Government website and the help they provided via email and telephone, those have been the best resources for me.
The Coalition for Open Government is a non-profit agency dedicated to keeping government ‘openness’ growing. They do not sit back and assume that what is available is enough. They work to expand the parameters of openness, while simultaneously helping to empower citizens in making the current law work for them. They are also a 501c3 organization so any donations made are tax deductible.

If you have never made a FOIA request before, and would like someone to help you through the process, you will find all the resources that you need right here at the Virginia Coalition for Open Government website.

Rather than recreate the wheel, you can use their frequently asked questions (faq) section for some explainations and definitions in plain English (very little ‘legalize’ is used). On the page with the FOIA itself, there is even a copy of the form for carrying your request on to district court if need be (directions for filling it out are also there).

The FOI Citizen’s Guide is where I really got my start. This document pretty well takes you through the process of learning what your rights are under the FOIA. Basically, it provides information on what it is you are entitled to and how/when the government agency is required to respond. It also provides information on what your rights are as pertains to public meetings.

One of the links on their pages will take you to their bank of newsletters. You can find a lot of information. They work hard to provide you with information concerning recent FOIA related events, evaluations of the FOIA process, bills that may be coming up concerning FOIA, FOIA bills in the legislature, and some of the not-so-good things that have happened relative to FOIA.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on July 1, 2009 in FOIA

 

Tags: , , , , ,

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

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!

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.

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.

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: , , , , , ,