Comment in opposition to HB1878 'Retaliation' (as Mr. Freed notes in his comments) is a two-way street. While we would like to believe this bill protects citizens -- it is drafted to do quite the opposite and harms residents specifically in Virginia Beach. Currently, complaints within the City of Virginia Beach are overwhelmingly filed by developers (frivolously) who wish to acquire the property. Limiting this information allows these parties to continue to harass property owners without recourse, and encourages builders to continue this unethical conduct to ensure fees and expenses burden lower-income residents. They then acquire the property preferentially (i.e. no other bids or competition, completely off the book and no public record) at a discount rate (the City is known to waive all fees assessed in closing). This bill allows developers to continue to perpetuate a fraud on residents with the assistance of the local governing body wherein it deliberately hides potentially illegal (certainly unethical) and conspiratorial conduct between private parties and government actors. I encourage a redrafting in order to protect the rights of residents in both the protection of their information (if they are, in fact, the complainant) and in public disclosure of private individuals/organizations who use the complaint process to advance a business venture which deprives residents of their rights under the guise and assistance of local (and now state) government.

Please excuse my previous comment. It was not meant for 1878 but 2242.

Every government action must be as transparent as possible and any desire by a public official to make it harder for the public to gain information about what they or the government are doing in the name of the people, should not be supported. Want to avoid additional FOIAs being submitted,? An easy solution for all - put everything possible on line and also available at an office where the people can access things when they have questions. This would mean that only the most sensitive information would be subject to FOIA, cutting down on the workload, the cost and time of the person that submits the FOIA, and making all stakeholders feel that they are being respected and fully informed. Please vote this bill down.

Comments Document

The attached is information in support of HB1878 - Williams Graves on behalf of the City of Virginia Beach. The City of Virginia Beach fully supports this bill and we ask that you vote FOR this bill because it expands the FOIA exclusion to allow withholding complainant’s email addresses; and more importantly, it closes a loophole in the exclusion that creates a safety risk for our citizens. We have encountered situations where the release of a complainant’s personal information resulted in retaliation against the complainant. Thankfully, no one was harmed during these confrontations; however, in a world that continues to become less safe, we fear that releasing a complainant’s personal contact information could result in someone being harmed or even worse. Releasing complainant’s personal information serves no purpose other than to promote feuds between neighbors. Therefore, we ask that the subcommittee vote in support of this bill.

Comments Document

The attached is information in support of the Freedom of Information Act amendments in HB1878 - Williams Graves on behalf of the City of Virginia Beach.

Comments Document

The National Police Accountability Project (NPAP) is submitting a comment in support of the HB 1965. The bill will empower communities to uncover problematic police officers and hold them accountable for misconduct.

The Innocence Project at University of Virginia School of Law (UVAIP), Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project (MAIP) and the national Innocence Project make up the Virginia Innocence Coalition, which advocates for policies that address and prevent wrongful convictions. The Virginia Innocence Coalition supports House Bill 1965. We thank Delegate Mullin and this House Public Safety subcommittee for considering this legislation. Police misconduct has been a factor in 35% of the more than 2,600 exonerations revealed in the United States to date. Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is supposed to empower citizens to hold public officials accountable. However, FOIA gives police agencies discretion over releasing officer disciplinary records, which in practice results in few disclosures. Lack of transparency perpetuates a culture of secrecy that systematically and pervasively shields police misconduct. The public does not know whether police departments are handling complaints against officers effectively or not. Virginia should provide public access to police disciplinary records to build trust with communities and ensure misconduct isn’t allowed to persist. The Virginia Innocence Coalition believes HB 1965 will directly help exonerate innocent people currently wrongfully convicted because of police misconduct. Full transparency of all complaints will help the public see that misconduct is appropriately addressed within police agencies, provide complete data to identify patterns or red flags, and ensure agencies are not incentivized to hide records by improperly “unsustaining” a complaint. This will further protect taxpayers from paying for large civil settlements due to misconduct lawsuits or wrongful conviction lawsuits, or for wrongful conviction compensation. And it is good for the vast majority of officers who protect and serve with professionalism, and who are unfairly tarnished by the pervasive misconduct of a minority of their colleagues. Nationally, at least 13 states allow complete public access to police disciplinary records. Virginia is also one of just 5 states in the country that leaves the release of these records solely up to law enforcement discretion (DC, MD, MI, MT, NE, VA). Law enforcement in Florida and Ohio, states with public access to police disciplinary records, attest that policing is improved with transparency, not harmed. Virginia took a step in the right direction by passing recent reforms to improve access to police misconduct records by Commonwealth’s Attorneys, increase transparency for police departments when hiring, and address issues related to decertification in instances of serious misconduct. While laudable, these reforms still leave the public in the dark and do nothing to build the public’s trust that police misconduct is appropriately addressed. These reforms also minimally impact the role of misconduct in criminal matters; the reforms rely on information being turned over to Commonwealth’s Attorneys, and the Commonwealth’s Attorneys then identifying exculpatory information to be released to the defense -- creating a multi-step process, with layers of judgment calls, that does not guarantee all relevant players will be made aware of an officer’s full disciplinary history. These reforms constitute important progress, but still leave significant room for misconduct to hide.

Comments Document

The Virginia State Conference NAACP (Virginia NAACP) supports HB 2007 Virginia Freedom of Information Act; posting of fee policy by a public body. This bill, introduced by Delegate Danica Roem, will add transparency to the FOIA fee structure eliminating subjective estimations. “Submitting a FOIA request should not be cost-prohibitive to citizens or to organizations. We should know what we will be expected to pay. Our experience is evidence that over-estimations are unfair and it could be impossible for some to pay. We will fight to ensure that the FOIA process is accessible to all Virginians.”

I am writing to encourage your support for HB 2006, which your Committee will consider on Tuesday morning. HB2006 shall ensure: • Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, all public records shall be open to citizens of the Commonwealth, representatives of newspapers and magazines with circulation in the Commonwealth, and representatives of radio and television stations broadcasting in or into the Commonwealth during the regular office hours of the custodian of such records. Access to such records shall be provided by the custodian in accordance with this chapter by inspection or by providing copies of the requested records, at the option of the requester. The custodian may require the requester to provide his name and legal address. The custodian of such records shall take all necessary precautions for their preservation and safekeeping. • Any public body that charges for the production of records pursuant to this section shall provide an electronic method of payment through which all payments for the production of such records to such locality may be made unless such locality lacks the necessary technology for receipt of such electronic payments. • Public records maintained by a public body in an electronic data processing system, computer database, or any other structured collection of data shall be made available to a requester at a reasonable cost, not to exceed the actual cost. When electronic or other databases are combined or contain exempt and nonexempt records, the public body may provide access to the exempt records if not otherwise prohibited by law, but shall provide access to the nonexempt records as provided by this chapter. Impediments to legitimate FOIA inquiries hinder an informed public while reducing transparency and trust in government. Faith can only be maintained by a commitment to open and accessible public information. Thank you.

Comments Document

The Virginia State Conference NAACP (Virginia NAACP) supports HB 2007 Virginia Freedom of Information Act; posting of fee policy by a public body. This bill, introduced by Delegate Danica Roem, will add transparency to the FOIA fee structure eliminating subjective estimations. “Submitting a FOIA request should not be cost-prohibitive to citizens or to organizations. We should know what we will be expected to pay. Our experience is evidence that over-estimations are unfair and it could be impossible for some to pay. We will fight to ensure that the FOIA process is accessible to all Virginians.”

I am writing to encourage your support for HB 2007, which your Committee will consider on Tuesday morning. HB 2007 shall ensure: • A written policy (i) explaining how the public body assesses charges for accessing or searching for requested records and (ii) noting the current fee charged, if any, for accessing and searching for such requested records Impediments to legitimate FOIA inquiries hinder an informed public while reducing transparency and trust in government. Faith can only be maintained by a commitment to open and accessible public information. Thank you.

NVAN Testimony in Support of HB 2050 January 24, 2023 Good afternoon – my name is Bob Eiffert and I am testifying on behalf of the Northern Virginia Aging Network (NVAN) in strong support of Del. Bennett-Parker’s HB 2050 to allow local and regional advisory bodies to meet virtually. NVAN is comprised of the Commissions on Aging, area agencies on aging, service providers and advocacy organizations for older adults from Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William. We learned during the pandemic that virtual public meetings increase public participation and openness, both goals of good government. The virtual meeting format allows people who may have mobility limitations or transportation issues to participate when they would otherwise not be able to do so. Older adults and individuals with disabilities are especially negatively affected by in-person meeting requirements. This bill is also supported by the City of Alexandria, Arlington and Fairfax Counties. Organizations that support it include the Virginia Chamber of Commerce, AARP, the Arc of Virginia, the League of Women Voters of Virginia, AAUW, the Virginia Association of Area Agencies on Aging, the Virginia Association of Counties, the Virginia Association of Planning District Commissions, and the Virginia Municipal League. We all urge you to support this legislation to enhance the ability of all persons to attend and participate in public meetings. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you for this opportunity to support HB2050/SB1351. Virtual meetings became the norm for the pandemic and it allowed folks to participate when they were homebound. In Southwest Virginia, transportation is a major issue as well as childcare. We do not have the flexibility that a city environment offers. As a member of the American Association of University women, Wytheville Branch and Southwest District Representative, I am particularly focused on gender equity for women and girls. AAUW is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization where volunteers work towards promoting equality in education and the workforce. Offering electronic meetings helps to decrease barriers that impact low-income families and the disabled. I urge you to vote YES on HB2050/SB1351. Thank you, Anita Aymer, Wytheville VA.

The League supports HB 2050. People who serve on public bodies essentially donate their time because the compensation, if any, is minimal. Attending meetings in person often involves travel time and expense, in addition to the time needed for preparation and the meetings themselves. While in-person meetings can have a stronger interpersonal dynamic, experience shows that members more regularly attend all-virtual meetings, not only because they do not have to travel but also because they can avoid conflicts that preclude their presence. Furthermore, members of the public attend in greater numbers when they are permitted to appear virtually. In addition, some people cannot travel due to disabilities. This bill will encourage more people to dedicate their time and energy serving on public bodies and will invite greater public engagement.

HB2050: Bennett-Parker I'm writing to you on behalf of the Virginia Grassroots Coalition. One of our priority bills for the upcoming VA Legislative Session is Delegate Elizabeth Bennett-Parker's proposal to expand the ability of local and regional public bodies to hold meetings virtually above its current 2 or 25% limit. The current restrictions make it more difficult for members of the public to take positions on the affected boards, commissions, and other public bodies Increasing the flexibility as to how these meetings can be held will result in increased access for citizen participation on these bodies which are voluntary and advisory in nature. You will get a wider variety of participants – more diverse, wider range of ages and with more varied skill sets. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Joanne Collins 11744 Great Owl Cir Reston 20194

This bill, like HB1473, puts obstacles in front of hard-working, tax paying Virginians to easily access what is being proposed in their communities in terms of development so that they can have a voice in what impact it will have on their lives and that of the community. If our legislature believes in transparency, then why support giving zoning the option of a tax map no. or an address of the property? Of course, it should be an address. Why remove the description from easy access? The information should be clear and readily accessible to everyone. And why would any representative want to remove the requirement of notices when there are proposed amendments concerning general usage, density and other data regarding to density as the proposal states, when these elements will directly effect everyone in the community from traffic, school capacity, safety, pollution, effect on environment, size of support services, etc., etc., etc. There is no monetary savings when those that will be impacted by development have less input into what is being considered in their own community due to removing or lessening full transparency. Zoning board members are not elected but their decisions can impact a community for years to come, sometimes transforming communities - whether good or bad - as a result of the decision of only a few appointed people who may only be receiving one perspective on upcoming projects, usually all in favor of the petitioner. Isn't it your obligation to serve the entire community and give everyone the best chance to participate in these serious decisions, with special consideration to those living in the community that can best contribute to the best decision for development in that community? Don't cut them out. Rather than putting up obstacles to transparency, how do we make it even easier for them to receive the information on the original proposal, all the subsequent proposed amendments and easy access to the zoning board even if they can't attend the meeting. Thank you for your consideration.

First point - the bill language fluctuates between "advertise" (advertised, advertising) and "publish" (published, publishing). What is the legal distinction between the two and can the language be uniform? Secondly, this bill makes some of the same mistakes as HB1473. It removes transparency by eliminating the description of the zoning action, and allows just a tax map number in lieu of a street address. Both of these decrease transparency for our citizens. Please strike this provision of the bill. If a citizen sees a notice with no description and just a tax map number, what would trigger them to seek more information? Will they have to check all notices? Why do we want to make the notice process more obscure and difficult for our citizens? Quoting from the bill summary: "In cases where the intended action affects more than 25 parcels, the notice must also include the approximate acreage subject to the intended action. The bill also removes the requirement that notices of proposed amendments to a zoning map state the general usage and density range of the proposed amendment and the general usage density set forth in the applicable part of the comprehensive plan." This is an unacceptable loss of transparency. The (very) few dollars saved in advertising costs does not warrant the lack of transparency. Please strike this provision from the bil language.