Public auditors contributing reporting to this story from Radford University: Davidson Baker, Jalen Bennett, Lena Borges, Lucas Burton, Katherine Clarke, Greta Cline, Jacquelyn Dwyer, Brianna Goss, Ian Greco, Elizabeth Jeans, Matthew King, Rylee Lyons, Anderson Miller, Carter Mullins, Joshua Poslusny, Lillian Pratt, Matthew Rutley, Elizabeth Villa, Joelle Watkins.
They see us coming from a long way off.
Local governments are used to hearing from journalists. Many of them work very well with us to fulfill our requests for public information. But this information is not just for the press. It’s public information. It belongs to everyone.
So how does a local government treat residents when they come in and ask for public information? When the government entity knows that residents may not know all their rights under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act? And that if the government wrongfully denies a person’s request for public information, it’s not likely to end up on a website with tens of thousands of subscribers?
That’s where a public audit comes in. To celebrate Sunshine Week, Cardinal News is presenting the results of its first public audit, conducted over the last five working days so we could bring you real-time results.
In a nutshell, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, often simply called FOIA, “ensures the people of the commonwealth ready access to public records in the custody of a public body or its officers and employees.” The act contemplates a liberal view of the rights of Virginia residents to access information and notes that exemptions cited need to be interpreted narrowly. “All public bodies and their officers and employees shall make reasonable efforts to reach an agreement with a requester concerning the production of the records requested,” according to the act.
Upon the delivery of a request with “reasonable specificity,” the public office has five working days to respond. The request does not have to be in writing and does not have to invoke FOIA for the public officer to have to consider it as a FOIA request. The office must respond in five working days by either providing the requested information, denying the request while citing a specific exemption from the act, fulfilling in part while denying it in part, or asking for more time to fulfill the request.
Note that the act applies only to residents of Virginia, and to representatives of media outlets that circulate or broadcast in the commonwealth. So an agency doesn’t have to fulfill your request if you live outside the state lines.
Reporting below is based on the responses received by the auditor from the locality and forwarded on to Cardinal News. Delays in communication between an auditor and Cardinal News may impact when a document or response reaches us. We’ll update this story as we receive additional documents and responses.
Incident reports: Did we ask the question wrong? And police asked the wrong question: ‘Why?’
Most auditors were denied the information they had every right to see. But was it a problem in how the question was asked? In a digital age, it can be difficult to tell what you can find at an in-person records desk and what’s better tracked down through an online FOIA portal.
What it is, when it happened
On March 12, 20 students from Hyeri Jung’s journalism classes at Radford University spread out to put this scenario to the test: When a Virginia resident comes to their local government with a request for information, do they get it, are they delayed, or are they denied? Are they treated with respect or are they misinformed, knowingly or not, by their own government?
We gave our student auditors eight basic requests for information that we know is public and should be fulfilled in the standard five-working-day timeline. They asked each of those questions to a dozen localities, from small towns to our biggest city and counties.
Not every request was made of every locality. Court case requests we kept at the circuit court level. School superintendent requests could be made only where there is actually a superintendent of schools, which is mostly at city and county level.
Lastly, auditors are people who lead busy lives that are often interrupted by work, weather and family circumstances. Some of our auditors could not reach all their localities on a single day; others lost touch with Cardinal after making their initial requests. Some requests and data collections were completed by Cardinal staff to fill in the gaps where possible.
A public audit is not a “gotcha” story waiting to happen. It’s the opportunity to show how even smaller towns have used the internet to make more information easily available to the public, and to give credit for these positive changes in government behavior which we’ve come to take for granted.
We also want to call out when information is withheld, residents are misled, or where improvements can be made for better communication along the way to providing and receiving requested information.
Working together is “sprinkled throughout our FOIA” law, Virginia Coalition for Open Government founder Megan Rhyne said by phone on March 18. Residents and the press have a responsibility to make their request with a reasonable amount of specificity; governments are under the responsibility to consider even a question on the phone with the seriousness of a formal FOIA request and are held to the same timelines to come up with a response.
FOIA requires law enforcement agencies to make certain information public, but the best way to get that information is slightly different in every locality.
Under FOIA, all law enforcement entities are expected to provide “criminal incident information” upon request, including:
- A general description of the criminal activity reported
- The date and time the alleged crime was committed
- The general location where the alleged crime was committed
- The identity of the investigating officer
- A description of any injuries suffered or property damaged or stolen
Most police departments and sheriff’s offices designate a FOIA officer residents can email to request records. Some, like the Danville Police Department and Lynchburg Police Department, even post recent incident information, like the time and location of police responses, online.
Still, obtaining full incident reports from local law enforcement in person proved difficult for our auditors. The auditors walked into police departments and sheriffs’ offices across our area and asked the front desk for the opportunity to view incident reports from the past 24 hours.
Some auditors were given a flat “no” and were denied access to these records — after lots of questions about why they wanted to see the report. In Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Danville, Lynchburg, Pulaski County and the town of Pulaski, auditors were unable to view the day’s incident reports in person.
In Blacksburg, the auditor was immediately denied his request. In Christiansburg, the auditor was told that incident reports were unavailable without going through a court process.
In Pulaski County, four police officers questioned our auditor repeatedly about why they requested incident reports, before denying the request.
Only Bristol and Radford provided a print-out of their recent reports to auditors in person. These reports included some of the above information, like the date and address of the incident, the reporting officer and a description of the offense, including a vague description of the criminal activity reported.
They did not include a description of injuries suffered or property damaged, although this is likely information that a FOIA officer could provide more easily than a receptionist.
Through a FOIA officer in Bristol, our auditor received fuller incident reports that included additional information like number of offenders, number of victims, a statement from the caller who reported the incident, a statement from the responding officer, and whether the offense was completed or merely attempted.
In Danville, the auditor was told to look online for incident reports. Danville’s police department posts weekly updates to the city’s website with incident reports from the previous week.
The Danville reports include only the date and address of the incident and a vague description of the offense. For example, “weapon law offenses” or “all other criminal offenses” or simply “police information.”
They do not include the name of the responding officer, or a description of the injuries suffered or property stolen.
Lynchburg’s online system is similar, with the time, location and nature of incidents logged as calls come in. Our auditor picked a case number from the database and asked for its incident report at the police department. The auditor was told that it could take up to two weeks for incident reports to be reviewed and finalized, with a suggestion to come back later.
Most police departments have detailed FOIA information online that tells residents what they can request and how to request it. Every department is slightly different, so be sure to research the process in your locality.
This audit revealed that it can be difficult for residents to receive exactly what they’re looking for by walking into a police department and asking in person. You have a right to keep asking for this information, even if you’re met with a “why?”
Checking court cases an ‘easy process’ for all
Our auditors had no problems getting into circuit court and accessing case documents.
Viewing circuit court case documents was a smooth process in each of the localities we audited. Our auditors were able to easily find and view documents in Bristol, Danville, Lynchburg, Montgomery County, Pulaski and Radford circuit courts.
Some auditors walked into the courthouse with a specific case file written down, and courthouse staff pulled that exact file. Auditors were then able to look at the file without further questions asked.
In others, auditors were directed to a records room with computers where they could look up court documents themselves using the case file number.
In Montgomery County, circuit court staff helped the auditor find the case they were looking for and helped them understand how to search for cases in the future.
Cellphones are not allowed in courthouses, but auditors were able to bring in a notebook and pen to take notes on the court documents they viewed.
Everyday residents in these localities can do the same thing. Going to a courthouse to view files in person yields more information than what is included in the Virginia Courts database online.
For criminal cases, the database provides basic information like a case file number, the name of the defendant, the name of the defendant’s attorney, the date of the offense, and a list of hearing dates and their results.
In person, folks can view all of the additional nonconfidential documents included in the case file, like evidence submitted, dockets and judgments.
Residents can also print any of these court documents and take home a copy, although it usually comes with a fee. For example, Danville’s circuit court charges 50 cents per printed page and only accepts cash.
This public audit revealed that circuit courts across Cardinal’s coverage area comply wholeheartedly with the Freedom of Information Act’s mandate to make nonconfidential court documents publicly accessible.
Minutes of public meetings easy to find online, but may be delayed
Minutes of public meetings are a key record for localities’ governing councils and boards, documenting what was said, approved, denied and planned for the future — and by whom. Curious why that apartment complex got a permit to move into your neighborhood or what your district representative advocated for in your locality’s budget? Minutes have the answer, or at least part of it.
All 12 localities audited by Cardinal News have their public meeting minutes easily accessible online. Most localities’ websites have a direct tab or link to a repository of meeting agendas and minutes, which means residents can access those records without ever needing to submit a FOIA request or pay a fee.
There’s often a multiweek lag between when meetings occur and when their minutes are posted because governing bodies vote to approve their minutes before they are finalized. Councils and boards typically start each meeting by voting to approve the minutes from the previous meeting, closing that loop. During our audit, 10 of the 12 localities’ most recent minutes were from February.
Two localities had longer lags: Lynchburg’s most recently approved minutes are from Dec. 9, and Pulaski County’s are from Nov. 24.
Most localities post draft minutes in their agenda packets, which are a helpful resource if you’re looking for records in a pinch. Those will often have a watermark or clear “draft” title to remind you that they have not yet been approved by the governing body.
‘I was not expecting the over $500 amount’: Outside legal counsel data can be pricey for some, free and fast for others
Localities rely on city and county attorneys for most legal needs, but outside counsel may be recruited to provide specialized expertise or manage complex litigation. Taxpayer funds are used to pay those lawyers, and the log of when and how much those lawyers are paid is a public record.
Our auditors sent FOIA requests asking localities for the amount they spent on outside legal counsel over the last five years, broken down by year and law firm. Of the 11 localities successfully audited for this question, eight provided detailed spreadsheets that answered our question, free of charge. Three of those localities — Bristol, Danville and Pulaski County — sent responsive records back to us on the same day we made the request, and all acted well within the five-day window mandated by FOIA.
Against that backdrop, one of our public auditors was surprised when Lynchburg said it would cost an estimated $513.58 to access the records — including a $200 deposit. “I was not expecting the over $500 amount to see the documents I had requested,” the auditor wrote to Cardinal News.
Radford and Blacksburg joined Lynchburg in citing a charge, $37.35 and $29.59 respectively. According to Virginia code, a public body may make reasonable charges not to exceed the actual cost incurred in accessing, searching for, and duplicating the requested records.
Why the discrepancy in our auditors’ bills? Records come in all shapes and sizes, and some are harder to compile than others. For example, the Lynchburg document was 356 pages, and the time and staff pay needed to review and redact it was set to add up fast. Blacksburg told our auditor that outside counsel bills are tracked through several accounts, and a paralegal would have to take time to tabulate the data to produce the record we were looking for.
Both Lynchburg and Blacksburg offered our auditors opportunities to pare down their request, making a smaller workload for staff and thus a smaller bill for requesters. We took that path with Blacksburg and modified our request to ask for the past two years of outside legal costs instead of five. They fulfilled that request free of charge and within a day.
Across all audited localities, our auditors encountered thorough and helpful FOIA officers who aided in refining this search question and ensuring it landed in the hands of the correct department.
Texts and emails to and from the mayor or chairman of supervisors
Texts and emails between public officials can reveal how a local government is working, and how they try to solve problems. Cardinal News made use of such emails to find out that city officials knew for over a year that water had been cut off to fire suppression systems at Riverdale, for instance.
Initially, we planned to ask localities to provide a week’s worth of the emails and texts for the local mayor or chairman of the governing body for our public audit. But we soon realized that fulfilling that request would have required a lot of time, and possibly a lot of money. So, most of the requests were narrowed to 24 hours.
The requests also resulted in a lot of back-and-forth emails between auditors and local government officials that continued over most of the week between the day the request went out to the five working days they had to respond.
The local government officials asked a lot of questions ranging from requesting a clarification on what exactly we were trying to get to asking if we wanted an estimate of the fee that would be charged, which usually occurs when the request would require a lot of time. Most of the localities, however, did not charge us.
In the request to Roanoke, fulfilling the request would have cost us more than $50, although the local official we were dealing with seemed to try throughout the process to reduce the cost. We asked the official to waive the fee and she said she couldn’t, so we didn’t pursue it further.
We also were reminded that those seeking public records should pay close attention to how the Freedom of Information request is worded and what precisely they are asking for.
Bristol officials seemingly fulfilled the request, but we never received a single email or text.
The auditor asked the question: “I was wondering if it was possible to get a record of the most recent emails and text messages sent by Mayor Holmes in the past week?”
We actually asked for a record of things, and not the things themselves.
What we received was a spreadsheet that provided information about the number of emails, 161, and texts, five, and they threw in the 22 calls the mayor received.
“This is the entire record with no redactions — it shows sender, subject, recipient, date and every other potential metric,” the local official wrote in an email.
Another city official did ask the auditor if they wanted the actual emails and texts, but it appears the question wasn’t answered. So they proceeded to respond to the request as written.
School superintendent’s contract
We also had two auditors ask seven local school systems to provide a copy of the superintendent’s contract.
We thought this would be a fairly simple request, but the response was mixed.
We received five contracts and one locality, Roanoke, asked for more time, seven additional working days, saying they had “first-priority tasks pressing.” It’s a standard and legal procedure to ask for the additional time.
The official said it is not “practically possible to provide the records within five working days from the date of your request due to several significant, time-sensitive tasks related to our core business of teaching and learning that require the full focus of involved leaders at this point in the school year. Specifically, our Human Resources Office is preparing and disseminating contracts for all employees for the next school year.”
They added that the request will be fulfilled on or before the close of business on March 30.
Under the Virginia FOIA, localities can request a one-time extension of seven working days, but they must notify the person requesting the information within the initial five working days.
The auditors reported that they did not get responses from Montgomery County.
Not much conflict getting conflict of interest docs
Eight of 12 localities provided conflict of interest documents for members of their city council, town council and board of supervisors.
In Montgomery County, the FOIA officer helped the auditor by restating their request back to them via email in a way that clarified the request or added a reasonable specificity to the request, such as “for all current council members” or “going back two years.”
Most elected local officials are not professional politicians. They have jobs and careers. They may work for a company whose interests come before their council or board. It’s in the public interest to know when an elected official may have a conflict of interest, so these documents provide that context.
Lynchburg responded on time with a link to a document in its online system and a note stating, “Our Clerk of Council indicates that all other Conflict of Interest statements are made during council meetings and recorded in the minutes. I have provided you a link so you may access the City Council minutes.” The link goes to the council minutes pages, where the requester would then search all city council minutes to find those statements.
As of 5 p.m. on the fifth working day after the requests, auditors had not yet forwarded responses from Radford, Blacksburg and Christiansburg.
Budgets (and related documents) were all easily found online
All 12 localities were highly responsive. Our auditors easily found the most recent approved budget for each locality, as well as budgets for previous years, explanations of the budget process and even some pages dedicated to keeping residents informed as that process continues over months.
As unwieldy as budgets are, residents take a great interest in the budgetary process and localities have responded by making budget information available online.
How we reported this story
Cardinal News worked with 20 students from two Radford University classes to do the bulk of the auditing. In some cases, Cardinal journalists stepped in when an auditor was not available.
The public audit is a one-day event. The idea is to get a glimpse of how multiple localities respond to the same questions on the same day, within the same timeline and under roughly the same conditions. For instance, if there was a weather event (there was, in fact) or a holiday or some other event that took resources for a local government to deal with, then each locality would be subject to roughly similar circumstances over the same time period.
We chose 12 localities to audit. This was based partly on where our auditors could reach in a single day, since some requests had to be done in person.
We chose eight questions to ask. Two factors figured into the choice of each question. The information requested should be of value for residents to know. And the question should be able to be answered by the locality within the five-working-day range established by the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.
Not every locality was asked every question. In some cases this was because it was not applicable to that locality (some localities don’t have their own circuit court, or their own schools superintendent, but are part of a larger system incorporating a neighboring town and county, for instance).
In some cases it was because of other circumstances. One freelance auditor helping to fill in for places the student auditors could not reach was in a car crash during the freak Thursday morning weather of March 12. We couldn’t mobilize another volunteer to make a four-hour circuit of the cities and counties that person would be auditing on that day. As a result, there are some localities that we did not reach with certain questions.
We gave the localities until 5 p.m. of the end of the fifth working day after the request was made, and finalized our findings, which are reported above.