FOIA Friday: Virginia Health Department withheld records on Richmond water crisis

Yahoo

07-03-2025

(Photo by Getty Images)
One of the less noticed features of the Virginia Way is the long-running tendency of the commonwealth's leaders to conduct their decision-making behind closed doors. While the Virginia Freedom of Information Act presumes all government business is by default public and requires officials to justify why exceptions should be made, too many Virginia leaders in practice take the opposite stance, acting as if records are by default private and the public must prove they should be handled otherwise.
In this feature, we aim to highlight the frequency with which officials around Virginia are resisting public access to records on issues large and small — and note instances when the release of information under FOIA gave the public insight into how government bodies are operating.
The Virginia Department of Health (VDH) appears to have improperly used a Freedom of Information Act exemption meant for limited, careful use by the governor's office, drawing scrutiny from state officials and journalists alike.
The situation began when the Richmond Times-Dispatch received a heavily-redacted FOIA response from VDH regarding communications between state and local officials during Richmond's January water crisis, which left residents without safe drinking water for nearly a week.The extent of the redactions raised concerns about whether the agency was unnecessarily withholding public records.
Graham Moomaw, a reporter at The Richmonder and former journalist at The Mercury, followed up on the issue, asking Gov. Glenn Youngkin's office about VDH use of the 'working papers' exemption — a rule meant to shield records prepared specifically for the governor or cabinet secretaries for personal or deliberative use.
Moomaw says the governor's office denied any involvement, indicating that VDH had not consulted them before applying the exemption.
'I was reacting to an egregious response they gave to the (Richmond Times-Dispatch),' Moomaw said. 'And then, after the governor's office said, 'We don't agree with what VDH did, and we're reassessing this,' I filed a piggyback FOIA with VDH, saying 'I'd like everything you gave to (the Richmond Times-Dispatch), but with less stuff redacted.''
Moomaw filed his follow-up request on Feb. 28, but as of publication, VDH has not responded.
A years-long legal battle over a controversial Hanover County land use decision has reached another turning point, as the Court of Appeals of Virginia ruled that COVID-era restrictions on public comment during the project's approval process did not violate the state's FOIA.
The case stems from Hanover County's board of supervisors approval of a Wegmans distribution center near a historically Black neighborhood and a neighboring subdivision — a choice that sparked immediate backlash from residents. Many joined forces in a lawsuit challenging the approval process, arguing that restrictions imposed during the pandemic limited public participation and transparency.
Although advance notice of the vote was published in a local newspaper, residents argued that there was no mention of a cap on public comment registrations and restrictions on physical access to the board room for those wishing to observe the proceedings in person.
Their lawsuit also challenged the county's classification of the Wegmans project as an 'essential' government function — a designation that allowed it to move forward under a pandemic-era ordinance intended to ensure continuity of governance during the early days of COVID-19.
Additionally, by the time the limited public hearing took place, new proffers related to the project were introduced for discussion — documents that residents had not been able to review or comment on beforehand, the lawsuit stated.
The case has taken multiple turns in court. The Hanover Circuit Court dismissed the residents' lawsuit, but the Virginia Supreme Court later ruled that they had the right to challenge the supervisors' decision — leading to the latest appeal.
Arlington County Public Schools has abandoned its X (formerly Twitter) account, opting instead to post updates on Bluesky, a newer social media platform with far fewer users The shift, which began in late February, has drawn questions from some school board members about the decision to leave a larger audience behind.
'Why not maintain both?' asked school board member Miranda Turner at a recent meeting, according to ARL Now.
The school system's Bluesky account, created in December, has significantly fewer followers than its longer-standing X account. But Superintendent Francisco Durán defended the move, explaining that interactions on Bluesky were 'healthier and more constructive' compared to the negativity and harassment often seen on X — much of it from people outside the local community.
Beyond concerns over toxicity, school officials also pointed to the cost as a major factor. Unlike X, which now charges for verification, Bluesky offers free account authentication, providing an extra layer of credibility without the financial burden.
X once offered free verification for government agencies, businesses, public figures, and journalists to ensure accounts were legitimate. But after Elon Musk's takeover and rebrand, verification became a paid feature, making it harder for institutions like school districts to prove authenticity without added expenses.
Have you experienced local or state officials denying or delaying your FOIA request? Tell us about it: [e-mail]
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE