Wednesday, April 2, 2014

OPEN GOVERNMENT (?) - sometimes sunshine gets blocked!

The last full week in March was Sunshine Week in Virginia.  That annual recognition is to remind us and reemphasize the critical role that Virginia's Open Meeting Law and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) have in protecting our rights.  Openness and transparency in all governmental policies, budgets, legislation, and decision making should always be done in the Sunshine.  Unfortunately openness is not always the case.  Following are two recent examples of actions which were intended to obscure what should have been public information.

Case 1.  I requested Essex County Animal Pound public records pursuant to FOIA.  The request was submitted prior to the arrest of Pound Manager and Animal Control Officer Angle Fennell.  Requests for public records must, by law, be submitted to our County Administrator, Reese Peck.  He, in an appropriate abundance of caution had Larry Smith, Essex County Emergency Services Director and Ms. Fennell's supervisor, attend our discussion and learn the full details of the request.  My request was specific to documents establishing the probable abuse of two dogs which were adopted from the Essex County Pound by one of their volunteers.  Mr. Smith was fully informed of the sensitivity of the inquiry and the need for prompt action.

The initial reply from Mr. Smith was incomplete and unresponsive.  I provided him with specific written details describing the missing documents and asked for an immediate response.  The second response was incomplete and included a denial of some of the records.  Mr. Smith stated that Pound Manager Fennell, who has been arrested and charged (a trial is pending), told him that the records were exempt from release.  Because the Department Head had obstructed my FOIA request I informed Mr. Peck of the refusal to provide the requested public documents and the failure to comply with the Freedom of Information Act requirements and response time. 

Mr. Peck took prompt action.  I received the requested documents and filed an animal abuse complaint in King and Queen County.  The adopter of the two dogs was also arrested and charged concurrently with Ms. Fennell.  Note that Ms. Fennell had attempted to hide documents, including Essex County adoption contracts, which were intended to protect the adopted dogs.  Her supervisor aided her in that attempt by denying access to public documents.  

I have no doubt that Mr. Peck intends for Essex County Government to fully comply with the full intent of FOIA.  During numerous discussion and in all my contacts so far I have been confident that both his words and his deeds demonstrated his desire to open the shutters, open the drapes, and let the sun shine in all aspects of our county government.

Case 2.  I recently attempted to obtain information about the unnamed person or persons responsible for care of dogs seized in Richmond County on 13 August 2012 by Sr. Trooper Jodi M. Creasy, Area 2, Division 1 (Richmond) located in Warsaw.  The FOIA request was, as required, submitted to the State Police Headquarters in Richmond.  It asked for all public documents which authorized or directed Sr. Trooper Creasy or other persons to: seize dogs on 13 August 2012, act as custodian of the seized dogs (including care, release, transfer, etc.), or dispose of any or all of the dogs. 

By letter First Sergeant Michael L. Sweet, Area 2 Commander denied my FOIA Request under an exemption to the Act.  I appealed and the appeal was also denied by First Sergeant Sweet.  I then filed an appeal in the General District Court as provided for by the Act.  The Judge upheld the denial of my request stating that some of the requested public documents were enclosed in the investigation file (note that all trials and appeals had been completed prior to filing the request and the investigation should have been closed) and were therefore exempt.  During the hearing he did comment that the filing of custody and disbursal records within an investigation file appeared to unusual (my remembrance of the Judge's words, there was no transcript of the hearing).

My attempt to bring Sunshine into the seizure of dogs, the apparent mistreatment of dogs in the custody of an agent (or agents) of the Commonwealth, and the disbursement of dogs to inappropriate recipients was unsuccessful.  Most advocates and supporters of the Virginia FOIA acknowledge that there are too many overly broad exemptions.  Other documentation which identifies responsibilities for the seizure, custody, and disbursal of the dogs has become available. 

A side note:  Ms. Fennell, in Case 1 above, was also involved in the seizure, custody, and disbursal of 14 of the dogs.

Follow up – The Virginia FOIA Council and the Virginia Coalition for Open Government periodically review and make recommendations for strengthening VA FOIA.  I intend to advocate to limiting the blanket exemption granted to "investigation reports".

To learn more about VCOG or to make a donation supporting advocacy for Open Government please go to www.opengovva.org .

John Clickener, writer for this post  

Publisher, ESO