Virginia Freedom of Information Act; mandatory disclosure of public employee. (SB552)

Introduced By

Sen. John Cosgrove (R-Chesapeake)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Virginia Freedom of Information Act; mandatory disclosure of public employee position and salary information; exceptions. Provides that the provisions of FOIA do not require public access to records of the names, positions, job classifications, or other personal identifying information concerning (i) employees of state or local police departments or sheriff's offices who are responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of the penal, traffic, or highway laws of the Commonwealth; (ii) special agents of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; (iii) officers of the Virginia Marine Police; (iv) conservation police officers who are full-time sworn members of the enforcement division of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries; (v) investigators who are full-time sworn members of the security division of the Virginia Lottery; (vi) conservation officers of the Department of Conservation and Recreation commissioned pursuant to 10.1-115; (vii) full-time sworn members of the enforcement division of the Department of Motor Vehicles appointed pursuant to 46.2-217; or (viii) animal protection police officers employed under 15.2-632. Amends § 2.2-3705.8, of the Code of Virginia. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Failed

History

  • 01/13/2016 Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/16 16101174D
  • 01/13/2016 Referred to Committee on General Laws and Technology
  • 01/25/2016 Impact statement from DPB (SB552)
  • 01/28/2016 Assigned GL&T sub: #2
  • 02/08/2016 Reported from General Laws and Technology with substitute (8-Y 7-N) (see vote tally)
  • 02/08/2016 Committee substitute printed 16105187D-S1
  • 02/09/2016 Impact statement from DPB (SB552S1)
  • 02/10/2016 Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
  • 02/11/2016 Passed by for the day
  • 02/12/2016 Read second time
  • 02/12/2016 Reading of substitute waived
  • 02/12/2016 Committee substitute agreed to 16105187D-S1
  • 02/12/2016 Reading of amendment waived
  • 02/12/2016 Amendment by Senator Cosgrove agreed to
  • 02/12/2016 Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute with amendment SB552ES1
  • 02/12/2016 Constitutional reading dispensed (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
  • 02/12/2016 Passed by for the day
  • 02/12/2016 Printed as engrossed 16105187D-ES1
  • 02/12/2016 Impact statement from DPB (SB552ES1)
  • 02/15/2016 Passed by temporarily
  • 02/15/2016 Read third time and passed Senate (25-Y 15-N) (see vote tally)
  • 02/17/2016 Placed on Calendar
  • 02/17/2016 Read first time
  • 02/17/2016 Referred to Committee on General Laws
  • 02/17/2016 Assigned GL sub: Subcommittee #2
  • 02/25/2016 Subcommittee recommends laying on the table
  • 03/08/2016 Left in General Laws

Video

This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 3 clips in all, totaling 9 minutes.

Transcript

This is a transcript of the video clips in which this bill is discussed.

PAGE 19, REGULAR CALENDAR. SENATE BILLS ON SECOND READING.

Sen. Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax): SENATE BILL 560, A BILL RELATING TO FORECLOSURE ADVERTISEMENTS; POSTED AT COURTHOUSE AND ON CIRCUIT COURT WEBSITE. REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE FOR COURTS OF JUSTICE WITH AMENDMENTS.

[Unknown]: THE SENATOR FROM JAMES CITY COUNTY, SENATOR NORMENT.

Sen. Tommy Norment (R-Williamsburg): THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I WOULD ASK THAT SENATE BILL 5560 GO BYE FOR THE DAY, SIR.

[Unknown]: THAT LITTLE WILL GO BYE FOR THE DAY.

Sen. Tommy Norment (R-Williamsburg): SENATE BILL 552, A BILL RELATING TO THE VIRGINIA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT; MANDATORY DISCLOSURE OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE POSITION AND SALARY INFORMATION; EXCEPTIONS. REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE ON GENERAL LAWS AND TECHNOLOGY WITH SUBSTITUTE.

[Unknown]: THE SENATOR FROM CHESAPEAKE, SENATOR COSGROVE.

Sen. John Cosgrove (R-Chesapeake): I MOVE THE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE BE AEED TO. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED, NO. , THE AYES HAVE IT. THE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE IS AGREED TO.

[Unknown]: I BELIEVE THERE IS A FLOOR AMENDMENT.

Sen. John Cosgrove (R-Chesapeake): YES.

[Unknown]: I WOULD MOVE THE READING OF THE FLOOR AMENDMENT. THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE READING OF THE FLOOR AMENDMENT BE WAIVED. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED, NO. THE AYES HAVE IT. THE READING OF THE FLOOR AMENDMENT IS WAIVED. THE SENATOR FROM CHESAPEAKE. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT NOW I WOULD MOVE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT AND SPEAKING TO THAT MOTION. THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. THANK YOU. THE FLOOR SUBSTITUTE DRASTICALLY REDUCES THE UMBRELLA OF PEOPLE COVERED UNDER THE EXEMPTION TO FOIR AND WOULD PERTAIN SOLELY TO LAW ENFORCEMENT MEMBERS WITH THE ADOPTION OF THIS AMENDMENT. WOULD THE SENATOR GREED FOR A YES? WOULD THE SENATOR FROM CHESAPEAKE YIELD FOR A QUESTION. I YIELD. HE YIELDS. WE ASKED WHETHER THIS WOULD APPLY TO SHERIFFS AND CHIEFS OF POLICE AND PEOPLE IN A SUPER VICE IRY ASPECT. HAVE THEY BEEN ELIMINATED FROM THE SCOPE OF THE BILL. THE SENATOR FROM CHESAPEAKE. I WOULD SAY NO, THEY HAVE NOT UNDER THIS FLOOR AMENDMENT. IT ABOUTER TAPES TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND TRAINING RECORDS AS AND FIRE MARSHALLS' TOO DEFINED IN THAT SECTION OF THE CODE. IT I IMAGINE WOULD, INDEED, COVER SHERIFFS AND CHIEFS OF POLICE. FURTHER QUESTION, MR. PRESIDENT,. WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION? I YIELD. HE YIELDS, SENATOR. I ASK THE GENTLEMAN IS THIS DEALING WITH TRAINING RECORDS OR SALARY INFORMATION OR BOTH? THE SENATOR FROM CHESAPEAKE. MR. PRESIDENT, IT IS JUST WITH TRAINING RECORDS AND THEIR NAMES AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SALARIES. WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT THE WHOLE SALARY QUESTION WAS TAKEN OUT. FINAL QUESTION. WOULD THE SENATOR YIELD FOR AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION. HE YIELDS. I APOLOGIZE. THIS NO LONGER HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH SALARY AND SOLELY HAS TO DO WITH TRAINING RECORDS. THE SENATOR FROM CHESAPEAKE. I ANSWER THE GENTLEMAN AND NAMES. NOT JUST TRAINING RECORDS BUT ALSO THE NAMES OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT QUESTIONS. THE SECOND FINAL QUESTION, MR. PRESIDENT,. WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION. I WOULD LOVE TO. HE YIELDS. I NAMES OF THE PERSON RECEIVING THE SALARY IS NOW REDACTED. THE SENATOR FROM CHESAPEAKE. I BELIEVE THAT IS ACCURATE, YES, MR. PRESIDENT,. THANK YOU, SENATOR. I THANK THE GENTLEMAN. THANK YOU, SENATOR. IS SENIOR SENATOR FROM LOUDOUN, SENATOR WEXTON. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. WOULD THE PATRON YIELD FOR A QUESTION. YIELD FOR A QUESTION? I WOULD BE DELIGHTED. HE YIELDS. I WOULD INQUIRE WHETHER THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS COVERED UNDER THIS SECTION STILL INCLUDE ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS, LOTTERY BOARD OFFICERS? THE SENATOR FROM CHESAPEAKE. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. AS LONG AS THEY HAVE ARREST POWERS AS DEFINED IN THAT SECTION OF THE CODE THEY WOULD BE INCLUDED. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THANK YOU, SENATOR. MR. PRESIDENT,. THE SENATOR FROM FAIRFAX. I APOLOGIZE FOR TRESPASSING. SPEAK AGAINST THE MEASURE. THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR SCALING BACK THIS MEASURE SOME WHAT ALTHOUGH I'M NOT CLEAR HOW MUCH IT WAS SCALED BACK. I'M WORRIED WHEN THE AFTERNOON IS OVER WE WILL HAVE TAKEN A SIGNIFICANT BITE OUT OF FOIA. I UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE IN -- MR. PRESIDENT,. THE SENATOR FROM HANOVER. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. ARE WE NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE FLOOR AMENDMENT. THAT IS CORRECT. I APOLOGIZE. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE FLOOR AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED, NO.


Sen. Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax): THIS IS MAKING A MAJOR CHANGE IN THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND THE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION WE MAKE AVAILABLE. THE PEOPLE THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF SOME OF THESE INQUIRIES CAN BE ELECT THE OFFICIALS, SHERIFFS, CHIEFS OF POLICE, PEOPLE THAT CAN BE EARNING SIX FIGURE SALARIES, PEOPLE THAT CAN EMPLOY THEIR BROTHER IN LAW, SON IN LAW, A MEMBER OF THEIR CHURCH, YOU NAME IT. AND BY EXEMPTING THIS INFORMATION WE TAKE IT MUCH TOUGHER TO DISCOVER THE INFORMATION. IF MAY BE TRUE YOU CAN WRITE A LETTER AND SEND IT IN FOR A FORMAL FOIS REQUEST. WE MADE THIS INFORMATION ACCESSIBLE TO REIN IN THESE TYPES OF ABUSES. IT IS HARD TO EXPLAIN EVERY SINGLE INCIDENT WHERE SOMEONE HAS BEEN THREATENED BY DISCLOSURE OF IDENTITY. MY IDENTITY IS PUBLIC. SOMETIMES YOU GET A CRAZY PERSON THAT WANTS TO MAKE A BIG DEAL. OUR SOCIETY AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE STATISTICS IS A GOOD BIT SAFER FROM IT WAS. THE GENTLEMAN FROM COMES PEEK, E WHEN WE CAME ON THE SENATE THEY HAD JUST PLANTED A PLANE IN THE SIDE OF THE PENTAGON. I DON'T THINK WE ARE UNIQUE AND CAN'T HAVE PUBLIC INFORMATION. THE TRAINING RECORDS PIECE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO FOIA ANYWAY. THE IDEA TO TAKE PEOPLE'S IDENTITY OUT OF THE PUBLIC PURVIEW WHEN VOTERS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION AND INSIDER TRADING IS A MISTAKE AND I HOPE WE DEFEAT THIS BILL.

[Unknown]: THE SENATOR FROM ALEXANDRIA. WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD TO A QUESTION. I YIELD. SAN ANTONIO TEXAS ASKED TO PRINT HOME ADDRESSES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE VIRGINIA CODE THAT REQUIRES LOCALITIES RIGHT NOW TO POST THE HOME ADDRESSES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS? THE SENATOR FROM CHESAPEAKE. I WOULD ANSWER THE GENTLEMAN THAT I DON'T KNOW AND I CERTAINLY HOPE NOT BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE EXTRAORDINARILY DANGEROUS TO THE MEMBERS. THE SENATOR FROM ALEXANDRIA. SPEAKING JUST A SECOND AGAINST THE BILL. THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. I COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING THAT ALLOWS OR REQUIRES LAW ENFORCEMENT ADDRESSES TO BE POSTED AND I WOULD ASK THAT WE VOTE AGAINST THE BILL. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM CHESAPEAKE. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE SENATE WE ARE NOT GOING TO TALK A LONG TIME ABOUT THIS BECAUSE I THINK PEOPLE NOW HOW THEY WANT TO VOTE. THERE A THIN BLUE LINE AND MEMBERS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PUT THEMSELVES IN JEOPARDY EVERY SINGLE DAY TRYING TO PROTECT YOU AND TRYING TO PROTECT YOUR FAMILIES AND TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE RULE OF LAW. FOR US TO JUST CAVALIERLY THINK THAT THEY SHOULD -- ALL OF THAT INFORMATION SHOULD BE LAID OUT ANY TIME SOMEBODY WANTS IT I THINK IT WRONG. I THINK IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT WHEN AN ORGANIZATION HAS THAT DATA THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO TO MANAGE THE DISSEM NATION OF THAT DATA. -- DISSEMINATION OF THE DATA. THERE ARE CERTAIN EXEMPTS UNDER FOIA AND I THINK THE LIFE AND SAFETY OF OUR PUBLIC OFFICERS AND FAMILIES AND MARSHALLS SHOULD TAKE PRECEDENCE.

Comments

Mike mckenna writes:

I truly beleive that if officers names and personal information can be given out without their approval is very very bad. I am a retired Norfolk va police officer and I have arrested many very bad criminals that have vowed to get even. Since I have retired when eating out I have had many people approach me and tell me that I arrested them 20 years ago . Not s good feeling. When eating out I always sit with my back to the wall. There have been many uniformed officers shot will sitting at a lunch counter not covering their backs. Please don't make it easy for criminals to find our families. I retired 7 years ago and still maintain a unlisted in published #