Printer-Friendly
Email this Story
Post a Comment (10)
Court rules all e-mails are public; county to appeal
Another Freedom of Information Act lawsuit is headed for an appeal.On Nov. 20, General District Court Judge Dean Worcester ruled that Supervisor Lori Waters (R-Broad Run) cannot withhold e-mails she deems to be personal from Sally Mann.
It would not be appropriate, Worcester ruled, for the court to give a public official the right to decide on his or her own discretion which documents are public and which are private.
He ordered Waters to turn over copies of "all e-mail records requested, without deletion or redaction on the basis that the record is private or personal."
Waters immediately promised an appeal to Circuit Court. Her appeal will join those of Worcester's previous rulings in FOIA cases involving supervisors Jim Burton (I-Blue Ridge) and Scott York (I-at large). Those appeals are scheduled to be heard Jan. 28.
Waters said the ruling "does not appear to settle the issues raised in court, does not make a distinction on what is a public record and what is personal or campaign-related and not subject to FOIA."
Mann, of Hamilton, requested all e-mails that Waters had sent to or received from nine individuals, starting Jan. 1, 2006. Mann told the court she has had land-use applications before the Board of Supervisors in this time period, and she wanted to know the identity of nine individuals she named in the FOIA request, and why they opposed her application and ridiculed her on various Web sites.
Waters turned over 178 pages of documents, including all e-mails stored on her county government computer, and some of the e-mails on two other accounts. She blackened sections of some of these e-mails from her non-government computers, claiming those sections were personal and did not deal with public business.
She alone reviewed the documents from her home computers and decided which were public business and which were personal. Public officials, she argued, still have a personal life, and the FOIA law addresses only public documents.
Worcester disagreed, as he had earlier in Mann's FOIA requests to Burton and York.
Modern technology, Worcester wrote, has given Waters a "virtual office" that follows her everywhere, 24/7.
His ruling may infringe on the privacy of a public figure, Worcester wrote, and "that is simply a consequence of being a public official."
The General Assembly may want to create an exemption for personal or private communications, or to clarify the definition of "transacting public business," Worcester concluded, but it hasn't done so yet.
Word is the county attorney told the whole Board in a written memo early on that if they used their computers for transaction of public business to communicate with staff or constituents, then that computer was FOIA'ble and its records would be public records... if that is the case then Ms. Waters should do the honorable thing--provide the public with access to those records. Can't have a system to allow hiding public records under the guise of its my personal computer.
Posted by soulfull
Report Offensive Content
It is gratifying to read of the Circuit Court's ruling which seemed quite obvious. The public officials are utilizing the resources of the county (paid for by our tax dollars) to communicate with politically minded constituents, then hiding behind a privacy law. Any communication with a constituent/tax payer is for public review- open government? I am dismayed that our tax dollars are being utilized to pay the county attorney's office to bring such an appeal simply because certain BOS members want to hide correspondence. Good for Mrs. Mann. We are all entitled to know the truth.
Posted by byebyeburton
Report Offensive Content
This FOIA quest is nothing more than a political vendetta. This case will certainly be appealled and the decision vacated. Both political parties will certainly enter appearances to protect incumbent politicians from unwarranted intrusions into their privacy.
Posted by jeffwolinski
Report Offensive Content
The only people wishing to appeal this matter are those that have something to hide. I hope others value and embrace the notion of open government. There is no such thing as political privacy.
Posted by byebyeburton
Report Offensive Content
There is such a thing as political privacy when the person filing the FOIA has offerred the fruits of the FOIA request to an incumbent's political opponent weeks before an election, and the emails in question involve politcal discussions not related to public business. This judge's ruling basically says that any incumbent politician's political strategy communications are fair game through FOIA. I can absolutely guarantee you that was not the intent of the framers of FOIA law, who were incumbent politicians themselves.
I know what I am talking about in this matter since I am the other party named in this FOIA suit. The discussions were in regard to political strategy, and most definitely had nothing to do with this person's land use case, as she mistakenly believes. Lori Waters went above and beyond any reasonable interpretation of what could be construed as a public document. That definition of what a public document is will certainly be the primary issue to be decided during the appeals.
Posted by jeffwolinski
Report Offensive Content
Jeff,
"Who" a supervisor is communicating with is important to know. Ms. Waters communicated to you on a variety of public matters, including Planning Commission meetings that I attended, concerning issues that affected my land. I know you don't want her to tell us what you said, or what she said to you, but it is not right for her to redact sentences and paragraphs of admittedly public documents. A public document is a public document and should not be subject to modification by a supervisor by redaction. It is not right to withhold other documents all together. It would not be fair to have some be able to communicate secretly with any supervisor under the guise of "personal" or "political" communications. That sets up a whole substratum of a secret class of communications which is the very antipathy of open transparent government.
Posted by sallymann
Report Offensive Content
I meant to say antithesis, not "antipathy," of open government in my previous comment.
Posted by sallymann
Report Offensive Content
Speculation by as to why someone wants to review records and communications under FOIA is simply inconsistent with open government. Why do county taxpayers have to foot the bill so the BOS members can hide what they have been communicating with constituents? Threats of taking this to the Supreme Court means the county will have to increase their legal budget. No thanks. We need the money to be spent wisely, not to hide gods know what.
Posted by byebyeburton
Report Offensive Content
I can guarantee you, Sally, as you will find out if you get unredacted copies, that I said absolutely nothing to Lori Waters, EVER, about your particular case, nor she to me. She went above and beyond what any reasonable person would consider to be a definition of a public document. Everything isn't about you and your complaints.
Posted by jeffwolinski
Report Offensive Content
Jeff,
Seems to me that this is all about YOU! it is YOUR emails that you don't want anyone to see...what are YOU hiding? There were emails in the emails provided from Loudoun Insider.. so you are not Loudoun Insider? because Loudoun Insider DID communicate with Ms. Waters about my property...
Posted by sallymann
Report Offensive Content
You must be logged in to post a comment.