Richmond’s public spending database no longer accessible

Getty Images

One of the less noticed features of the Virginia Way is the long-running tendency of the commonwealth’s leaders to conduct their decision-making behind closed doors. While the Virginia Freedom of Information Act presumes all government business is by default public and requires officials to justify why exceptions should be made, too many Virginia leaders in practice take the opposite stance, acting as if records are by default private and the public must prove they should be handled otherwise.

In this feature, we aim to highlight the frequency with which officials around Virginia are resisting public access to records on issues large and small — and note instances when the release of information under FOIA gave the public insight into how government bodies are operating.

Richmond’s public spending database is no longer public .

Despite city code mandating monthly updates to the city’s expenditures in the database, it hadn’t been updated since 2019. After reporting from The Richmond Times-Dispatch on the lack of updates , the database has since become inaccessible.

The webpage now reads “sorry, we can’t let you in here. You don’t have the security clearance to view this page.”

Councilors Andreas Addison and Reva Trammell have expressed frustration over the news.

“I want us to report all of it,” Trammell said.

Addison accused the administration of running away from transparency and said it will “erode the trust” of city residents.

While the city’s Chief Administrative Officer Lincoln Saunders confirmed that the database is no longer publicly available he told the publication that the cost of maintenance was among reasons for not updating it.

“When city council presented this legislation nine years ago, it came with the inaccurate premise that it would have no cost,” Saunders said.

He said that the database posed a time-consuming task for city hall administrators and that the pandemic exacerbated the problem.

<infobox>The Mercury’s efforts to track FOIA and other transparency cases in Virginia are indebted to the work of the Virginia Coalition for Open Government , a nonprofit alliance dedicated to expanding access to government records, meetings and other state and local proceedings.</endbox>

FOIA fight emerges over data center emails

A case in Fauquier Circuit Court could potentially end up revealing the content of roughly 3,000 emails related to a proposed data center that the city of Warrenton has been keeping from the public.

People in the community have sought more details about a proposed Amazon data center, but officials in Warrenton are withholding emails from both the town manager and its mayor.

While state law does protect freedom to most information, there are exceptions outlined — such as instances where sharing proprietary information provided by businesses where disclosure would “adversely affect the financial interest of the public body.”

But Fauquier Times reporter Peter Cary told RadioIQ this week that public bodies “ought to be utterly transparent.”

Meanwhile, Warrenton has local elections this fall that could play a role in whether or not the emails could be released sooner than pending litigation.

Lynchburg could strongly censure councilors

Following post-primary-election drama between Lynchburg city councilors and the city attorney, the councillegislative body is considering a censure of two members, Cardinal News reports .

Some of the contention stems from the results of the June 18 primary election. After Peter Alexander lost to current Vice Mayor Chris Faraldi for a council seat, Alexander sued claiming absentee ballots were not counted. He has since requested a judge drop the suit.

Meanwhile, council members Marty Misjuns and Jeff Helgeson — who supported Alexander — allege that calls and emails made by city attorney Matt Freedman equate to public funds spent on personal litigation. Shortly after the suit had been filed, Helgeson said that Freedman had called several council members and sent an email labeled “attorney-client privilege with action items.”

The full contents of Freedman’s email have not been made available to the public. Misjuns and Helgeson told local media they want to make the email public but can’t because Freedman marked it confidential due to attorney-client privilege.

In the meantime, the council will hold a special meeting next week where they will review a censure resolution. It would strip Misjuns and Helgeson of their seniority, reassign where they sit on the council dais, and bar them from participating in the city attorney’s annual review.