County attorney reviews FOIA obligations for meetings and records

Mister Wilmot, Gloucester County’s county attorney, told the Board of Supervisors on April 15 that the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) must be interpreted "in favor of openness and against secrecy and closed doors meetings." He reviewed who FOIA covers, the timeline for responses to records requests and common exemptions that can limit disclosure.

The training summarized why FOIA applies to local public bodies, including the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission and board-appointed committees, and reminded members that the code requires new officials to be provided a copy of the law and to complete FOIA training within weeks of taking office and again every two years. "If there's a doubt as to openness of meetings, or as to exemption from disclosure requirements, the act is to be liberally construed in favor of openness," Wilmot said.

Wilmot walked the board through the public-records side of FOIA: records include written memorializations of county business whether in email, text or memo; requests need not be written and may be verbal; and the county must respond within five working days with one of four responses — produce the records, say no responsive records exist, claim an exemption, or say more time is needed. He emphasized that requesters may be asked to narrow broad requests and that the county may require a deposit when estimated response costs exceed $200.

On fees and production, Wilmot cited the county policy that the first five pages of a response are provided without charge and that pagination fees generally apply thereafter; staff charge policies and hourly staff time also apply. He discussed common exemptions — law-enforcement, personnel, attorney work product, and some investigatory files among more than 30 statutory exemptions — and said many exemptions are partial rather than absolute.

Wilmot reviewed open-meeting rules, including that a "meeting" under FOIA occurs when more than two members gather to discuss public business, that meeting notices should be posted at least 72 hours in advance when practicable, and that minutes (including draft minutes) are records available for disclosure. He also explained requirements and procedures for convening closed meetings (motions must cite the statutory exemption) and the post‑meeting certification that the closed-session discussion matched the stated exemption.

Wilmot warned of enforcement remedies: civil penalties may apply for willful and knowing violations, and prevailing plaintiffs can be awarded attorney's fees. He closed by urging caution: "If you don't want it splattered all over the public, do not write it," he said, underscoring that written communications about public business are presumptively subject to disclosure.

Board members asked procedural questions during the presentation; Wilmot pointed them to the county FOIA policy and to Quentin Shepherd, the county’s public information officer, who handles FOIA requests. After a short question-and-answer period, the board moved on to other agenda items.