F.O.I.A. … now let’s see where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah! It is that Freedom of Information thing. You know, that thing where at either the National or State Laws clarify a citizen’s right to access public documents. (more…)
If you like a short read….you’re at the wrong place today. You might want to just copy and paste the text to a document file and read it as you have time. But, please do read it! If you have problems reading this here due to the length. just go to http://myvaresources.com/blogs/depotdazed/
A recent Roanoke Times article “Town Council plots out Christiansburg’s future“, pretty much says it all.
In the first line of the article you will find : “Town officials have a vision for what they want Christiansburg to look like in 2020.
First off, a true long-range view typically covers, at a minimum, a 20 year time span, NOT 11 years. Secondly, this makes if very clear that the Town officials are thoroughly convinced that they are the only ones who should make a determination of what Christiansburg should look like. Thus implying that what citizens want or think is totally unnecessary. Next, Mayor Ballengee notes he has “…always felt we needed to have a long-range plan for Christiansburg…” … duh!… that’s what a Comprehensive Plan is about. That’s what a Capital Improvements Program is about! Since we’re not making effective use of either of those two, we should try something else? Typically, this type of Vision Statement is the starting part for writing a New Comprehensive Plan. Maybe that is what the Town has in mind? Not likely. They have out of date charter, out of date codes, a comprehensive plan that is inadequate and did not include sufficient quality citizen input to be a fair representation of what citizens want….why break up the set! Maybe they are trying to change. I personally doubt it. This just looks like more of the typical ’smoke and mirrors’ distractions of citizens to keep them as ignorant as possible of what is going on. Only time will tell. And, this is one time that I sincerely hope that my expectations are wrong and that a new era of openness and the inclusion of citizens is going to really happen. I will not hold my breath though. Ballengee’s statement “We hope our community will embrace this plan,” pretty much says it all. What plan? Where is it? Where can citizens see it? How can citizens comment on it? You want us to embrace ‘it’, without knowing what ‘it’ is, without hearing what we (all citizens) think about what you have decided is best for us? Well, that’s how it has worked previously. It is the attitude that has lead to massive developments without fair consideration being made of the impact on citizen’s lives (i.e., traffic, overcrowded schools, increased crime, etc.). Wouldn’t it be novel if the Town asked for a change instead of dictated?
Now, let’s get to the meat of the matter. The “Town” (those 7 elected and who knows how many appointed/paid employees who are privy to the deep dark secrets of Christiansburg) has a plan that specifically addresses (but not limited to) these issues (from the above Roanoke Times article):
Looks, like your guess is as good as mine on the other 15 target issues.
The rest of this article will review some of the history that the Town Council and Town Manager have when it comes to these areas.
Now, it is time for me to play a bit:)
Concering #1: Pursuing green initiatives.
What evidence is there to indicate the Town has done anything other than pay lip service in this area. There are a few references to greenspace where developments were discussed but where has the Town Codes done anything but the bare minimum, to meet State Codes?
Sure, a lot of developments have opted for trails rather than sidewalks in subdivisions. And, yes some of those trails do exist, but they don’t GO anywhere. They are a disconnected, dysfunctional mass of bits and pieces that do not do the ‘interconnectedness’ that they were supposed to accomplish. Maybe the Town has been carefully laying out this patchwork quilt project for years without telling anyone what they were doing, but right now, it just looks like a mass of scraps.
In the June 5, 2007 Town Council meeting minutes this reference can be found: “Town Manager Terpenny drew Council’s attention to a flier placed at each of their seats regarding green infrastructure in the New River Valley. The “Green Infrastructure Initiative” was created by the New River Valley Planning District Commission to educate communities in the New River Valley on how to maintain a network of green infrastructure for healthy and sustainable community growth. An information meeting for Christiansburg is scheduled for June 21 at the Montgomery County Government Center and is open to anyone interested in learning more about this topic. (If you want to know more about this Initiative there is a website with information. Perhaps a good place for our public officials to start would be the page that explains what Green Infrastructure is. It will certainly point out that this has NOT been a top priority of the Town of Christiansburg! There are also meeting agendas and minutes available to the public at the site.)
The June 19, 2007 Town Council Meeting had a representative from the NRVPDC come and give a presentation. This presentation included documents related to funding opportunity request.)
At that same June 19, 2007 meeting, the Town Council gave unanimous suupport to a Resolution for Green Infrastructure Grant where the NRVPDC would seek a U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Grant to develop a Green Infrastructure Plan.
October 2, 2007, Elizabeth Obenshain, representing the New River Land Trust explained how the town of Christiansburg could participate in that groups efforts to preserve land.
March 4, 2008 the ‘Go Green Virginia Initiative‘ was discussed. “Town Council was introduced to the Go Green Virginia initiative started by Governor Kaine and sponsored by the Virginia Municipal League. The initiative is a nationwide effort to conserve energy. Localities must register with VML to participate, and participants will be recognized for success in various areas included in the program. Three information workshops have been scheduled around the State, and the workshop closest to our area will be held in Abingdon on April 22, 2008. Councilman Wade commented that he attended a seminar on the Go Green Virginia initiative at the 2007 VML conference and he learned that localities are not only saving money by participating, but it is also resulting in better treatment of the environment. mayor Ballengee asked Council to spend some time reviewing the information they have received on the initiative and to be prepared to vote on the matter at the next Council meeting. At the March 18, 2008 meeting Council unanimously voted to participate in the Go Green Virginia Initiative sponsored by the Virginia Municipal League. Unfortunately, this late entry into the process meant that Christiansburg was not found in the 2008 Winners list or in the list of VML Certified Green Governments. I wonder if the Town will manage to make the Sept. 30, 2009 deadline for participating in the Challenge for 2009.
On Sept. 2, 2008 Town Council Minutes: “Go Green Virginia Initiative. Mayor Ballengee presented each Councilmember with a copy of the energy Efficiency Plan prepared for review. After reviewing, modifications will be made as necessary. A copy of the Energy Efficiency Plan is attached and made a part of these minutes.” Unfortunately, a copy of that document was not provided to me or on the website. (You need to remember that the Minutes provided at the Town’s website are only the notes of the meetings, the multitude of additional documents that Town Council are provided with are seldom seen by the public eye…this is one such example.)
Concerning #2: Walking trails and multiuse paths
Notice that these are walking trails and multiuse paths, not sidewalks. These have been discussed for years and have not been able to get accomplished. Why? Do to not getting the grants needed to do it, and Town Council’s unwillingness to part with money for something as mundane as trails and paths when they could get an Aquatic Center instead. Other ‘finds’ searching for the word ‘trail’ led to places where the first 5 letters of the word ‘trailer’ were identified.
In 2005, there was a Montgomery County Greenways and Pathways Committee that the Town had representation on. Where have there been any reports back to the Town Council concerning any ideas/issues raised by this group. Is the group even still meeting? All of the references to this committee found on the internet are dated in 2005 and 2006. At least Montgomery County has some information on Greenways, Open Space & Trail Design on their website. maybe the Town can get some ideas from there or the links on that site.
Sept. 16, 2008, Councilman Vanhoozier proposed a pathway along Cambria Street from Sleepy Hollow Road to the Recreation Center. A feasibility study was suggested and Mayor Ballengee directed this matter to the Town Managaer.
The Town Council Meeting Minutes are full of references to the Huckleberry Trail. Most of these were ideas and plans for which there was no intention on the part of the Town to fund. The Town is more than willing to let public donations and groups accomplish the task. They have shown a willingness to let individuals and groups write grants, but the Town has shown no initiative on its own to make these connections to a viable trail system a reality.
Concerning #3: Public Information??????? Community Relations??????
Oh, they so do not want to go there with ME!!!! Simply go through all the Town Council Minutes online at myvaresources.com and see how many times the very word “public” is used for anything other than as “Public Hearing” or “public utilities”.
Public information and community relations do not appear anywhere in the Town Council Meeting Minutes, so this obviously has not be a priority before now. There are a couple of references to the 18 months the Planning Commission worked diligently to develop the comprehensive plan with the public’s input. Well, we already know what that actually meant.
In the Sept. 6, 2005 Minutes it was noted that “Councilwoman Carter commented that recently much attention has been drawn to evacuation plans. She noted that Christiansburg has an evacuation plan, but that the public may not be aware that a plan is in place. Manager Terpenny replied that while Christiansburg does have an emergency operations plan, it is only direction for public officials on how to handle catastrophes and not a specif plan on how to evacuate citizens.”
Concerning #4: Revising the Zoning Ordinance
Over the years, there have been a very few revisions of the overall Zoning Ordinance. In fact, there are significant questions as to whether or not even the State minimum is being met. How effective is any revision of the Zoning Ordinance going to be if they do not do a revision of the Comprehensive Plan? Simply updated the Zoning Ordinance to be up-to-date with minimum State standards may not be what citizens want. Anyone can cut and paste the existing codes from other jurisdictions that are up-to-date and form a Zoning Ordinance. It takes a decent, citizen-based Comprehensive Plan to form the framework around which that Zoning Ordinance is built. If that is lacking, you will simply get ‘cherry picked’ pieces that town officials want in the Ordinance with no inclusion of the overall community!
Concerning #5: Promoting the new Aquatic Center
What’s been done so far?
April 6, 2004 Town Council Minutes: Resolution for the Department of Conservation and Recreation Grant to Fund a Trail Project to the Future Aquatic Center Site was unanimously approved by Town Council.
April 6, 2004 Ad-Hoc Committee for the Future Aquatic Center created.
May 4, 2004 Adoption of a Resolution for Commonwealth Transportation Board Recreational Access Fund for Future Aquatic Center – This request is for an access road grant to construct a roadway from Nnorth Franklin Street to the new aquatic center site. Unanimously approved.
October 19, 2004 “Regarding the Aquatic Center, Town Manager Terpenny requested that the Finance Committee allow fundraising projects to raise additional funds for a fifty-meter competition size pool. Radford University and Virginia Tech are interested in utilizing the pool if it is a fifty-meter pool. This could mean substantial revenue for the Town. The difference in the twenty-five meter pool and fifty-meter pool is approximately 2.5 million dollars. Mayor Linkous commented that plans are to move forward with the construction of a fifty-meter pool while contributions are being sought.
May 1, 2007 Town Council Meeting Minutes: “Town manager Terpenny said he was recently contacted by USA Swimming regarding possible contracted use of the facility. USA Swimming is willing to work around Virginia Tech’s scheduling. Projected opening of the facility is Fall 2008.”
On several occasions it has been pointed out that the Mayor has established a committee to elicit donations from businesses and/or individuals for money for the Aquatic Center. At the most recent town Council meeting, the Mayor admitted that these efforts have not been very successful. So much for the idea of promoting the Aquatic Center. The Town has not been successful at eliciting support from local businesses and citizens. Thankfully, the builder went beyond State borders and was able to find some financing for some of the most expensive embellishments on the Aquatic Center.
The Town has a long history of NOT promoting itself. It has depended upon other groups and governments to do that sort of thing for them, then sat back and complained about the results.
This seems to be a pretty major undertaking on the part of Town officials. They have decided what Christiansburg needs and wants, and they will be deciding how to accomplish those goals. Hopefully, they will also take the time to figure out HOW TO PAY FOR THEM!!!!
The Roanoke Times article speaks of hiring for a new Town position, Public Relations. Well, what about the Planning Staff that was in the budget? Is that position now being dumped although you acknowledged another Planner was necessary due to the work load? And, what about the money in the budget for Recodifying the Code. Neither the position nor the rfp for either of these has been advertised. Are you figuring that people will just forget that you have acknowledged there are problems that need to be dealt with simply because you put the money in the budget?
I got news for ya’ll: TALK IS CHEAP! All the empty rhetoric in the world will not convince voters. Let’s see some action. Quit talking and start doing! Oh, and by the way, doing it in front of the public rather than hiding behind emails, phone calls, and secret meetings would be a pretty nice way to start showing that you are really willing to change.
After all in that same Roanoke Times article:
“The vision for the town’s future states that in 2020, the goal is for Christiansburg to be known as a retail, commerce and tourist destination, a town of WELL-INFORMED AND ENGAGED CITIZENS, a recreational, cultural and entertainment Mecca, a green community, a clean, healthy and safe place to live, a model for effective land use, a sound financial entity and an interconnected community.
The long-range plan also touts the town’s downtown; the new Montgomery County courthouse; the national retailers, restaurants and hotels in the community; the aquatics center; the mix of residential, commercial and recreational land uses; and walking trails, multiuse paths and mass transit.”
Hey! But it’s all okay. Per the article, the Town Manager and his key staff are going over each of the vision items to determine how to accomplish them. Who the heck needs citizens involved? We have our government taking care of us….just like they have for decades now….and people are so…so…very happy with the results of that!
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!
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:
These results rather lead one to the impressions:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Then in the last paragraph, he sums up this theme again:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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!
CAMBRIA DEPOT MUSEUM