Chesapeake councilwoman ruled not liable in FOIA case
Judge clears Ritter of personal liability; council’s trial next
CHESAPEAKE — A judge ruled last week that longtime Chesapeake City Councilwoman Debbie Ritter did not willfully and knowingly violate the Freedom of Information Act when she failed to turn over requested documents in a timely manner.
Retired Circuit Judge James C. Hawks — who was asked to preside over the case after all Chesapeake’s Circuit Court judges recused themselves — issued his ruling at the end of a hearing Wednesday that included testimony from Ritter and Councilman Robert Ike.
While the judge’s ruling cleared Ritter of any personal responsibility in the case, there hasn’t yet been a decision as to whether she and the city’s other eight council members violated the law through their official capacity. A trial is scheduled for Nov. 14.
The case stems from a FOIA request filed in January by Chesapeake Planning Commission member Levin Turner in an effort to obtain two documents Ritter circulated during an Oct. 25 closed door City Council session. Ritter conceded during Wednesday’s hearing that she showed the documents to her council colleagues to try to persuade them to vote against Turner’s appointment.
The first document she presented was a printout of a
Sept. 10 email sent by “ChesapeakeTruth2022” that questioned why the Chesapeake Republican Party was continuing to support then-City Council candidate Amanda Newins after she was accused of elder abuse and theft in a lawsuit filed by her great aunt. The second document was an “internet protocol address analysis” that claimed to show the email had been sent from a Yahoo account belonging to Turner.
Newins was elected to council in November. In March, she was indicted on a felony count of financially exploiting a vulnerable adult for allegedly obtaining her great aunt’s house through illegal means. The case is scheduled for trial next month. The civil case filed by her great aunt is set for trial in December.
Ritter testified Wednesday that she circulated the documents because she didn’t think it was appropriate to appoint someone who would send an anonymous email like the one she believed Turner had sent about Newins. Ritter also testified that she was a supporter of Newins.
She said she discarded the documents after the meeting because she didn’t think she was required to keep them under the law, which exempts documents circulated in closed sessions. The law, however, says the paperwork must be preserved; Ritter said she wasn’t aware of that.
Ike testified that he took photos of the documents during the meeting because he thought they looked suspicious and wanted to examine them further.
When the city’s FOIA manager asked council members to provide the documents after Turner made his request, Ritter said she didn’t turn them over because she didn’t have them anymore.
Ike said he didn’t initially provide the photos he took of them because he believed it was Ritter’s responsibility to turn them over. But after getting multiple request for the documents from the city, Ike said he informed the city attorney about his photos and provided copies. The information was then given to Turner, but not until after the deadline required by the law.
Jane Harper, jane.harper @pilotonline.com