Appellate Judges Question Augusta County’s Secrecy in FOIA Case: Could Tapes Soon Be Released?
- Sam Orlando
- Apr 19
- 3 min read
ritten by: Michael Phillips
STAUNTON, VIRGINIA - Augusta County’s attempt to keep a closed-door meeting recording under wraps may be on shaky legal ground after the Virginia Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the high-profile Breaking Through Media LLC v. Augusta County case on April 16. At least two judges expressed doubts about the county’s compliance with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), signaling a possible win for government transparency.
The case revolves around a March 20, 2023, executive session in which the Augusta County Board of Supervisors allegedly discussed the abrupt resignation of Supervisor Scott Morelli and related allegations of wrongdoing. Breaking Through Media is seeking release of the recording, arguing that the discussion violated FOIA and that the county improperly used a “personnel exemption” to keep the public in the dark.
Sharp Judicial Criticism Highlights FOIA Concerns
A critical moment in the hearing came when Judge Marla Graff Decker and Judge Dominique Malveaux challenged the adequacy of the county’s public notice for the closed session. Judge Malveaux, in particular, voiced repeated skepticism over the language used by the Board of Supervisors in its motion to enter closed session, which vaguely cited “personnel matters” involving the Board itself.
“That’s a who, but it’s not a what?” Malveaux asked—twice.
Her pointed interjection underscores one of the appellant’s core arguments: that FOIA requires more than just naming the people or bodies involved. It demands clear disclosure of what specific issue will be discussed. In this case, the resignation of a public official is central to the public interest and, arguably, should not have been shielded from scrutiny through broad or vague agenda language.
Legal observers noted that Malveaux’s comments align with precedent, such as Cole v. Smyth County, where courts have emphasized that FOIA’s transparency protections require specificity—not generalities—in meeting notices.
“These judicial remarks reinforce the plain-language reading of FOIA,” said Samuel Orlando, editor of Breaking Through Media. “You can’t just hide behind labels. If a public official resigns under a cloud, the people have a right to know why.”
Tapes Under Judicial Review — and Public Scrutiny
The appellate court has already ordered Augusta County to submit the disputed recording by March 19 for in-camera review. That means the judges have heard not only the oral arguments but also had the opportunity to listen to the actual conversation held behind closed doors.
A final ruling is expected in the coming months. If the court finds that the county violated FOIA, it could mandate the release of the tape—offering the public its first real insight into what transpired during that secret session.
Legal experts say the outcome could set a powerful precedent for local governments across Virginia.
Listen to the Hearing Yourself
To promote public understanding of the case, Breaking Through News is linking directly to the audio recording of the oral arguments made before the Virginia Court of Appeals. You can listen to the full hearing here to hear firsthand how the judges grilled county attorneys and engaged with the central transparency questions.
What’s at Stake?
The heart of this case is bigger than a single resignation. It’s about whether local governments can lawfully hide significant political developments under the guise of vague legal exemptions.
If the court rules in favor of Breaking Through Media, it could strengthen FOIA enforcement and set a firmer boundary against misuse of closed-session laws—especially when matters of public accountability are involved.
“The public deserves to know what’s being done in our name, and with our money,” Orlando added. “This case is a test of whether FOIA still means something in Virginia.”
Comments