Accomack judge hears arguments in Freedom of Information Act case

Carol Vaughn
The Daily Times
The Accomack County General District Courthouse in Accomac, Virginia

A General District judge in Accomack County said he will rule by early August on a case involving a man who made dozens of Freedom of Information Act requests to two state offices — the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia.

Testimony and arguments were given during a nearly five-hour hearing Friday in Accomac.

Dr. William H. Turner filed a writ of mandamus with the court about the requests.

Turner claims the Attorney General "is attempting to block my inquiry into $1.8 million in missing funds that has been doled out to about 175 Circuit Court judges in the last eight years," according to a letter he wrote to the News Leader of Staunton in May.

Turner sent requests for information about judges' finances to individual Circuit judges as well as sending multiple requests under the Freedom of Information Act to the Virginia Attorney General's office and the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia beginning in 2015, according to Turner's letter.

The two offices originally were named in two separate court cases, but by agreement the cases were combined and testimony in both was heard Friday.

Three attorneys from the Office of the Attorney General faced off against Turner, who represented himself.

The parties had before them three-inch-thick, white binders filled with documents listed in two Bills of Particulars — including Turner's letters and the agencies' responses, tabulated and indexed. One Bill of Particulars included 33 requests Turner made under the Freedom of Information Act and the other included 15 requests, Judge Gordon Vincent said.

The case involves Turner's allegation that agencies have blocked his attempts to obtain information about $1,500 a year the state allocates each Circuit Court judge for expenses — including office expenses, security, membership dues in professional organizations, professional publications, conference expenses, education, and staff appreciation or staff development.

In the past, the money was made available to a judge at his or her request, made by letter, and receipts were not required to be sent to account for how the money was spent, according to testimony.

The policy changed last year — judges now must submit receipts and be reimbursed for expenses, according to testimony by John Rickman, director of the Physical Services Department of the Office of the Executive Secretary.

The new policy went into effect July 1, 2016. Excess funds advanced in the past and not spent were to be returned to the office by July 30, according to a notice sent to Circuit Court judges on June 2, 2016.

Turner in a July 8, 2017 letter to the Eastern Shore News said the policy was changed "after I complained about the previous guidelines which allowed judges to simply request an advance allocation of $1,500 in anticipation of further public expenses."

Turner in the letter called judges' expense accounts a "tax-free cookie jar."

Turner called four witnesses in addition to testifying himself. The defense called Rickman as a witness.

Turner repeatedly asked Nerissa Rouzer, an assistant attorney general, about not providing information about which state code section applies as justification for judges not answering his requests for information made under the Freedom of Information Act.

"Judges are outside the purview of FOIA. There's not an exemption or an exception I can give you," Rouzer said, adding, "I did not claim to have a state code that stated that."

Rouzer said the Attorney General's office represents judges by state law.

Turner said he requested a response about the state code section 35 times, and during his questioning of Rouzer cited various letters he wrote to her.

"Did you answer that?" he asked Rouzer in one instance.

"There is no state code I can cite or provide to you," she said.

Rouzer said the office at one point received three letters in a single day from Turner.

Some of his requests were deemed as requests for legal advice, Rouzer said.

"What you are asking for is legal advice ... I didn't withhold any records from you," she said.

Under Heather Hays Lockerman's cross-examination, Rouzer said she has been an assistant attorney general since July 2015; her first contact with Turner was a letter sent in response to letters Turner wrote to several Circuit Court judges asking about finances, she said.

"Dr. Turner's letters to me became very personal," Rouzer said, adding he accused her of crimes, including hiding embezzlement.

"That's not what I'm doing," she said.

Turner next called to the stand Megan O'Brien, Freedom of Information Act administrator at the Attorney General's Office.

He asked O'Brien why she wrote him it would cost $1,000 to fill a request he made.

O'Brien said his request was interpreted to be for all correspondence in 2015 between the Attorney General's office and the Auditor of Public Accounts.

Under cross-examination, O'Brien said "over the past 3 1/2 years, I have received ... various letters" from Turner.

"They have been argumentative, accusatory, sometimes not very straightforward;" still, the Attorney General's office responded to them as it would to any other request, she said.

The third witness was Edward Macon, assistant executive secretary and counsel for the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia.

Turner asked about being sent references to a website where the Office of the Executive Secretary's policy on requesting public records is published.

"I'm entitled to have a tangible copy," Turner said.

Macon testified the office provided him with a hard copy of the policy.

Turner also asked Macon and other witnesses about whether records pertaining to judges' expenses had been destroyed.

Kristi Wright, director of public relations for the for the Office of the Executive Secretary, was next to testify.

She said in a response to a letter from Turner she "did say that they destroyed records pursuant to the records retention policy."

Wright said in response to Turner's question about a letter, "I do not see in there where I state that I destroyed records ... I did not destroy records ... I simply say we do not have records to respond to his request."

The office did not have receipts for judges' expenses prior to the policy change in 2016, she said, adding, "Now it's done on a reimbursement basis," so those records have been kept by the office since then.

Assistant Attorney General Robert Drewry called Rickman as a witness.

Rickman testified his office keeps records for three years or until an audit has been done, whichever is longer.

Records the office has related to judges' $1,500 allocations prior to the policy change are the udges' letters requesting the funds, which the office has after July 1, 2013, he said.

Rickman said no checks were sent out to judges since the policy changed unless the proper documentation of expenses was received.

Drewry said testimony proved the two offices have "substantively responded to Dr. Turner's request for public records."

He asked the judge to deny the writ of mandamus.

Turner submitted a letter giving an opinion from the Freedom of Information Advisory Council.

Vincent set a July 21 deadline for the defendants to submit their legal argument and a deadline of July 28 for Turner to respond.

On Twitter @cvvaughnESN

443-260-3314