Co-Head Of Virginia's FOIA Council Introduces Bill To Make State's Court System Even More Opaque

from the I'm-from-the-government-and-I'm-here-to-help...-the-government dept

As the result of a public records battle with a local newspaper over court records, two Virginia politicians have decided to address the issue with legislation. One hopes to further open court records to the public.

Del. Mike Mullin, D-Newport News, filed House Bill 4, which would require the case management system maintained by the Office of the Executive Secretary to be open to the public. The bill was filed in November.

The other politician involved has, unsurprisingly, offered up a competing bill that would take public records laws in the opposite direction.

Sen. Richard Stuart, R-Stafford, has a different idea. He filed Senate Bill 727 this week, which would exempt all courts in Virginia from the Freedom of Information Act.

This would add to the large pile of exemptions the state government already benefits from. To the detriment of residents, state agencies and employees have nearly 175 FOIA exemptions available to them. The addition of court docket data would further separate the Virginian government from transparency and accountability.

There's nothing surprising about a politician angling for more opacity. What is surprising is Sen. Stuart's stance, which is diametrically opposed to his position.

Open-government advocates said they were stunned that Stuart would file such a bill without consulting the Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council — of which he is vice chair.

“It appears that he’s suggesting that an entire branch of government — one of the three branches of government — be removed from the Freedom of Information Act,” said Betsy Edwards, executive director of the Virginia Press Association.

Of course, it could be very cynically argued that Stuart is doing exactly what the state wants, while holding an insider position on a council meant to provide some form of public advocacy for greater transparency. Stuart feels the court system should be able to craft its own exemptions and pick and choose what it wants to release to the unwashed voting bloc. This would just be more of the same from vice chair of the FOIA Advisory Council.

In 2016, he sponsored a bill that would have exempted disclosure of salaries of many state employees and forbid release of government employee databases with names of the employees if their salaries were also listed. A House subcommittee on FOIA killed it.

Stuart's stated identity theft as the reason for exempting this information from public release -- something that no one has ever alleged has occurred because of official releases of salary information. (Personally-identifiable information is redacted in Virigina's release of salary data.) He also threw a little shade towards the First Amendment, claiming newspapers would be unhappy if the bill passed because they profit off the publication of public records.

Just to be very honest with everybody in here, the newspapers are not going to like it if you vote for this bill. I don't want you to be disillusioned. It bothers me a little bit because what the newspapers do is they get this big database from the state and then they republish this online. And it helps them gain subscribers to their newspaper to search that information. And so, they are very unhappy with me and I suspect if you vote for this bill they will be very unhappy with you. And I want to be very honest about that. But I think we have an obligation to protect our state employees from suffering from identity theft.

Then again, Sen. Stuart isn't so much the vice chair of the FOIA Advisory Council as he is an absentee landlord.

Although Stuart is the vice chairman, he rarely attends meetings. He missed nine of 10 meetings of the council in the past two years.

It appears Sen. Stuart likes the power that comes with political office, but none of the obligations to the public that come with it. Stuart blamed scheduling conflicts for being unable to attend meetings that occur roughly every sixty days. He's adding zero value to the Council and spends more of his time in the legislature actively thwarting it. It may be tough to remove Stuart from office, but there's certainly no reason the FOIA Advisory Council needs to continue posting his name to its masthead and inviting him to meetings he just not going to attend.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 23 Jan 2018 @ 4:14pm

    It appears Sen. Stuart likes the power that comes with political office, but none of the obligations to the public that come with it.

    I wish I could say I found this surprising.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    I.T. Guy, 24 Jan 2018 @ 4:19am

    Some criminals use guns, some use pen and paper.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mason Wheeler (profile), 24 Jan 2018 @ 9:19am

      Re:

      Yes, as through this world I've wandered

      I've seen lots of funny men;

      Some will rob you with a six-gun,

      And some with a fountain pen.

      And as through your life you travel,

      Yes, as through your life you roam,

      You won't never see an outlaw

      Drive a family from their home.

      -- Woody Guthrie, Pretty Boy Floyd

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Hugo S Cunningham (profile), 24 Jan 2018 @ 6:06am

    Sir Humphrey Appleby would be proud...

    Senator Richard Stuart reminds me of
    Sir Humphrey Appleby, GCB, KBE, MVO, MA (Oxon) ("Yes Minister"), who maintained membership in the Campaign for Freedom of Information, even while protecting elected officials and the public from information they could not be trusted to use responsibly...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Personanongrata, 24 Jan 2018 @ 3:46pm

    The Adventures of Letterman*

    In a world based upon accuracy the letter R found in the middle of the italicized words below:

    Sen. Richard Stuart, R-Stafford

    which discloses the political party (ie Republican) Richard is affiliated would be a letter T.

    That is T for tyrant.

    Only a person/entity attempting to commit immoral/illegal/unconstitutional acts would seek to hide their actions behind the "law".

    When any person/entity seeks to underwrite their operations with public funds (tax-dollars) there needs to be complete transparency as to how the funds were spent and what actions undertaken.

    In the private sector this would be called accountability.

    * The Adventures of Letterman was an animated skit that was a regular feature on the 1971–1977 PBS television series The Electric Company.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Letterman

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z 3y_H3SaoAY

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Sayonara Felicia-San (profile), 24 Jan 2018 @ 10:01pm

    You have to create another extreme "side"

    so that they can negotiate and come to a synthesis. (just like Socrates!)

    It's just that nowadays, with nobody caring and all, they do it in a much more overt fashion.

    More than likely, "a compromise" will be reached, which will screw the public's right to know while making it sound like it's not, with a newly synthesized and synergized right not to know bill.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.