Familiar assault on public records

Few laws contain introductory lines as compelling and instructive about the purpose and function of government as Virginia's Freedom of Information Act.

"By enacting this chapter, the General Assembly ensures the people of the Commonwealth ready access to public records in the custody of a public body or its officers and employees, and free entry to meetings of public bodies wherein the business of the people is being conducted."

Few laws are as important to preserving the public's right to know what its government is doing and hold it accountable. But that hasn't stopped legislators from trying year after year to chip away at that access. This year is no exception.

Two efforts - both backed by Gov. Bob McDonnell - are especially damaging to the rights of Virginians and to the tenets of good government.

One would cause Virginians to wait longer for access to public records by stretching the window that officials have to comply with requests under FOIA from five working days to seven. Certain provisions already written into the law would still allow for an extension of an additional seven days.

The other would allow state officials to conduct meetings electronically, so long as at least one member is present at the advertised physical location. It would require a member of the public who wants to participate in the meeting, either through video or audio, to pay "the documented marginal cost that a public body may incur" to allow for that participation. Another user fee, apparently.

Presumably, when Virginia's FOIA was approved, few legislators interpreted "free" to mean constituents would have to cover a "marginal cost," or "ready access" to mean constituents would have to wait eight days for requested records.

Few likewise would have envisioned a day when, as McDonnell is fond of saying, "Thomas Jefferson's Capitol" would be sullied with an audaciously imperialist proposal to charge members of the public for the right to speak at a public meeting.

That bill, HB1105, should be withdrawn and disowned by its sole patron, Del. Thomas "Tag" Greason, R-Loudon.

Del. Kathy Byron, R-Campbell, said last week that she intended to introduce a bill that includes the seven-day FOIA response window, along with other recommendations from the governor's task force on local mandate review.

Those measures theoretically are designed to help cities and counties curb costs, although the amount of savings associated with changing the FOIA response time isn't clear.

Supporters said they were confident it would lead to fewer extensions and, therefore, less time spent by staff members requesting those extensions.

If history is any indicator, that's unlikely. Local governments have a notoriously poor record of complying with, or even knowing, the law. That's despite years of effort at education by advocates for open records, including the state's own Freedom of Information Advisory Council.

Giving public bodies two more days won't help; it would simply allow them to stall.

Officials who claim to be serious about "government reform" and curbing costs associated with answering inquiries from the public should see to it that public documents are readily accessible. They should insist on tougher penalties for public servants who try to hide their doings. And they should demand that government employees are actually familiar with current law.

A good place to start would be with a reminder of the principle codified in those introductory lines of Section 2.2-3700: "The affairs of government are not intended to be conducted in an atmosphere of secrecy since at all times the public is to be the beneficiary of any action taken at any level of government."