Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 4 of 5 · from the scan, no model involved
Further, the preamble to tne law directs that it be interpreted broadly in those close cases where the propriety of public access to information appears to be in doubt.
In spite of this, in the case of Roanoke School Board vs. Roanoke Times and World News, Mr. Justice Harrison and the majority of the Court went in the opposite direction. Harrison, along with Chief Justice Carrico and Justices Compton and Cochran accepted the narrowest possible interpretation of the Act. They held that since it did not specifically mention or exclude meetings by telephone, such meetings were not prohibited by its provisions.
The three-member minority, composed of Justices Poff, Thomas and Stephenson, joined in a stinging dissent. They attacked the majority opinion as contrary to the clear intent of the Freedom of Information Act.
The step forward for public enlightenment was taken quietly and without fanfare by Attorney General Gerald Baliles. It came in the form of an advisory opinion delivered in response to a question posed by Secretary of administration and Finance Wayne Anderson.
The Governor’s Advisory Board on Economics and his Board on Revenue Estimates includes among its members the captains of the state’s business and industrial sectors. The rationale behind the secret meetings has been that these leaders would be unwilling to share their business forecasts and corporate trends with the budget planners if this information was to be made public.
The practice has long grated on excluded government officials, concerned members of the public and the press. It has been likened to the ancient custom of the women and children being told to get lost and enjoy themselves with fun and games while the menfolk retired to the parlor for brandy and cigars to discuss the really important issues of the day. Such things were considered far too complex for lesser mortals to bother their heads about.
But all that may now be changed. In his response to Anderson, Baliles ruled that the closed door meetings did, indeed, violate the law. His opinion shook the Robb administration, which is now concerned about whether or not other inner sanctum bodies can legally exclude the public and the press from their deliberations.
An attorney general’s opinion does not have the force of law, but it would be potent supporting evidence for any plantiff who might challenge the closed meetings in court. It is highly likely that this will now happen.
With respect to the Supreme Court decision, the 1984 General Assembly should move quickly to plug the conference call loophole in the Freedom of Information Act. If it does not, the way is apparently clear for our cities and counties to be run by officials comfortably hidden in their homes, the corner drug store or the phone booth in Joe’s Bar. Surely this is not what the legislature intended.
As for Baliles’s excellent opinion, about the only damage it could really do is to the egos and prestige of the presiding elders of public and private sectors who, perhaps understandably, would like to transfer the clubbiness of their board rooms to the councils of government.
The trouble with this line of thinking is that they are influencing fiscal and other decisions which are the public’s business, and the public has a right to know what kind of advice its hired hands in Richmond are getting.
After all, it’s the public’s tax dollars they are talking about.
78.3%