FOIA FRIDAY: Data center debate sparks Franklin resident’s transparency concerns

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.

Franklin County officials have privacy agreements while deliberating a data center, resident FOIA shows

A Freedom of Information Act request by Franklin County residents revealed county officials entered into confidentiality agreements with an unnamed company related to a proposed data center project the local government is currently weighing.

WFXR reported that local residents said they felt left out of the approval process because it appears substantial discussion about the 150-acre project has happened behind the scenes, rather than at public meetings. 

The response to the FOIA, obtained by resident Danae Crosby, shows a confidentiality agreement with participating parties’ names redacted except for Economic Development Director Danielle Poe. 

The documents reference “Project Flash” and Summit View Business Park, where the data center would be housed if approved. 

The large plot of land the project would require has prompted residents’ concerns  over local infrastructure and the development’s utility needs. 

Transparency in approval processes is the latest issue to emerge in local debates about data centers. The data center industry and its proponents say the projects generate millions in tax revenue for localities. 

While Franklin’s data center is not yet reality, county Supervisor Dan Quinn explained that leaders’ behind-the-scenes discussion over projects is sometimes necessary. 

“We have closed meetings when companies come to the county and they want to discuss business arrangements, commercial terms,” he told WFXR. “Those meetings are necessarily closed.”

Mineral town council members sue, alleging FOIA law violation

Town Council members Rebecca McGhee and Michelle Covert filed a suit in Louisa County General District Court seeking enforcement of FOIA law over alleged violations by Mineral town staff, The Central Virginian reported. 

The suit said Mineral Mayor Pam Harlowe and FOIA Officer Teresa Newton did not abide by transparency standards, including “providing public notice of meetings, adopting and following agendas, complying with rules for electronic participation, and ensuring the committee meetings are open to the public.” 

Covert and McGhee argued that the officials’ failure to take these steps prevented them from rightfully and fully participating in their own town government. 

Town officials held a vote earlier this year to terminate the contract of the town manager on a vote of 4-3. 

Covert and McGhee questioned whether that vote was legitimate, due to the council’s alleged lack of adherence to the town’s electronic meeting attendance policy. The termination was also not listed on the public agenda, the plaintiffs argue. 

A special meeting between the council and planning commission concerning zoning is another issue named in the suit.

Covert and McGhee alleged that there was no agenda for the meeting prepared, adopted or published. During this meeting, the mayor accepted a resolution to declare that Mineral formally opposed the Valley Link Transmission Line project. 

McGhee and Covert said leaders’ failure to operate transparently invalidated the resolution.

An allegation that a council member refused to share documents with local journalist Tammy Purcell of the Engage Louisa newsletter is also included in the lawsuit.  

FOIA reveals Richmond uses people’s cell phone data to determine staffing, planning for public parks 

A FOIA request by the Richmond Times-Dispatch revealed that Richmond’s Parks and Recreation department is engaged in a three-year agreement dating to 2024 with Placer.ai, a locational analytics platform that gathers cellphone geolocation data and sells it to governments, small businesses and large corporations. 

City spokeswoman Tamara Jenkins said that the city uses the data to help determine how to best allocate public resources. 

By exploring how often people are frequenting public parks and correlations between events that might be driving them there, Jenkins said the data informs the city’s choices on “planning, staffing, grant writing, maintenance and capital maintenance forecasting purposes.”

“Responsive records show that, between July 2025 and June 2026, William Byrd Park saw 1.4 million visitors. Joseph Bryan Park saw nearly 670,000, while Forest Hill Park saw around 385,000,” the newspaper reported. 

While the data can also point to people’s demographics and where they may have gone after visiting a park, the newspaper said Jenkins stressed that  information is for Parks and Recreation use only and not shared with Richmond police or other investigative entities. 

Placer.ai staffer R.J Hottovy told the newspaper that the platform can track how many people access certain areas over given periods of time and track movement profiles, but it can’t determine exactly who people are because the platform doesn’t collect personal information. 

Without legal standards, Christopher Newport University professor Steven Keener warned The Times-Dispatch, people can only take private companies’ word on how their data may or may not be protected. 

“Once you start integrating locations with the profile data, your ‘anonymous data’ is becoming far less anonymous,” he said. “And these companies … make promises all the time. They say, ‘We won’t use it this way, we won’t use it to track women into Planned Parenthood clinics.’” 

“But in reality,” Keener said, “if you don’t have strong legislative guardrails to prevent that from happening, the company can and will change that at any time that makes sense for them.”

Have you experienced local or state officials denying or delaying your FOIA request? Tell us about it: [email protected]