imported post
Looks like UMW thinks they are above the FOIA laws... The article quotes many of the same players who are fighting against HB 79, which protects the personal information of CHP applicants.
Read the official "reason" at the bottom. If this ever gets in front of a judge, he's going to laugh it right out the door.
TFred
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/022010/02022010/524098/
UMW won't release call
February 2, 2010 12:35 am
BY JEFF BRANSCOME
The University of Mary Washington has classified President Judy Hample's emergency call to campus police last fall as "evidence related to a criminal investigation," even though it was a test.
That's the reason UMW gave for declining a Virginia Freedom of Information Act request by The Free Lance-Star to obtain a copy of the recording of Hample's call--made during a campus safety walk in September.
However, several experts on public records disagree with the university's interpretation of the law.
"If it didn't end up being a criminal matter, then it ain't a criminal investigation," said Maria Everett, executive director of the Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council.
She called UMW's reason for withholding the record a "broad reading" of the law. "FOIA requires a narrow construction of any exemption from disclosure," Everett wrote. The council is a state agency that provides advisory opinions and training to state and local government officials, citizens groups and the media.
At the time of the incident, university police didn't know Hample's call from an emergency phone at the campus parking deck was a test. She reported that a man was preventing her from entering her car, and he may have a gun, witnesses said.
Torre Meringolo, UMW's vice president for advancement and university relations, noted that police responded as if a crime were in progress.
Hample's call, he said, "would've been evidence used in any criminal investigation, should it have gone further." Asked whether Hample was under a criminal investigation, he said no.
Some in the college community have characterized Hample's test as filing a false report and said she jeopardized student safety.
Others applauded her efforts to gauge police response times.
FOIA experts question the university's decision not to release the call, regardless of what people think of Hample's methods.
Ed Jones, editor of The Free Lance-Star, asked the university in an e-mail to reconsider its denial of the newspaper's request.
" The university's reasoning strikes me as being contrary to the spirit and letter of the FOI Act," he wrote. "After all, how can it be claimed that the unfounded call is part of a criminal investigation when it has been stated clearly that no crime was being committed against the caller?"
Megan Rhyne, executive director of the Virginia Coalition for Open government, said the university is "stretching the definition of an investigation."
In an e-mail, she added: "I am confused by the simultaneous characterization of this as a test and that it is part of a criminal investigation. Under this interpretation, every time police responded to a call, any records/recording made of that response could be considered an investigatory record, since police respond to every [most] calls with the assumption that there may be a criminal incident."
Ginger Stanley, executive director of the Virginia Press Association, said she "didn't know of any exemption that they should be able to cite for that information."
"This was a test of the university," she said. "The public has every right to hear exactly what was presented by the president."
The university reiterated its position in a statement last week from Director of Communications George Farrar. "While the evidence gathered pertaining to last fall's safety walk did not result in a criminal charge, this fact does not diminish the fact that the recording which you requested is evidence related to a criminal investigation and therefore is exempt."
Senior Assistant Attorney General Ronald Forehand, who represents UMW, declined to comment yesterday.
UMW is not legally required to withhold the record, even if it is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
Jeff Branscome: 540/374-5402
Email:
jbranscome@freelancestar.com
UMW's response to The Free Lance-Star's Freedom of Information Act Request:
The Freedom of Information Act (Act) lists certain exclusions from the chapter, which permit agencies to withhold certain records. The records you have requested are excluded from the provisions of the Act. Specifically, Va. Code Ann. 2.2-3706(F)(1) excludes "complaints, memoranda, correspondence, case files or reports, witness statements, and evidence relating to a criminal investigation or prosecution, other than criminal incident information as defined in subsection A." There is one record, an audio recording, that meets the description of your request for "copies of the recordings." However, your request falls within the exclusion of 2.2-3706(F)(1), because it is evidence related to a criminal investigation. As a result, the records you requested are being entirely withheld.
It would have been better for a completely independent third party with no ties to the university to do the same thing, with the only one having knowledge being the President. Then no one would know it is a test.
