Case Title: Bland v. Virginia State University

Citation: 

Docket Number: 051882

State: virginia

Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 2006-06-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
Present:  Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and 
Agee, JJ., and Russell, S.J. 
 
PAUL C. BLAND 
             OPINION BY 
SENIOR JUSTICE CHARLES S. RUSSELL 
v.  Record No. 051882                  June 8, 2006 
 
VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY 
Samuel E. Campbell, Judge 
 
 
This appeal involves the application of the Virginia 
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Code § 2.2-3700 et seq. 
There are no facts in dispute. 
Facts and Proceedings 
 
The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business 
(AACSB) is an academic body to which business schools apply 
for accreditation.  Seeking accreditation for its business 
school by the AACSB, Virginia State University (VSU), an 
agency of the Commonwealth, submitted annual reports to that 
body. 
 
Paul C. Bland, a former member of the VSU faculty, by 
letter delivered January 31, 2005, requested VSU to provide 
him with copies of its annual reports to AACSB for the years 
2003 and 2004, pursuant to FOIA.  VSU responded on February 3, 
2005, by providing Bland with copies from which information 
concerning faculty members identified by name, including Bland 
himself, had been redacted.  The response did not invoke any 
statutory exemption to justify the redactions, as required by 
 
2
Code § 2.2-3704(B)(3), but the custodian of the records at VSU 
sent an e-mail to Bland on February 7, 2005, referring to Code 
§ 2.2-3705.1, which provides, in pertinent part: 
The following records are excluded from the 
provisions of this chapter . . . [p]ersonnel records 
containing information concerning identifiable 
individuals, except that access shall not be denied 
to the person who is the subject thereof. 
 
 
Bland, pro se, filed a petition in the trial court 
alleging a willful violation of FOIA and requesting production 
of documents, mandamus, costs and civil penalties.  The court 
heard the matter ore tenus.  At the hearing, VSU produced the 
complete, unredacted AACSB reports for the years 2003 and 2004 
for the court’s inspection in camera.  Counsel for VSU also 
offered to permit Bland to inspect the complete reports at the 
hearing, but did not furnish copies or offer them as exhibits 
and they were not made a part of the record.1  The hearing 
consisted only of the oral arguments of the parties and the 
court’s inspection, in camera, of the reports.  No other 
evidence was presented. 
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court held 
that VSU was entitled to invoke the personnel exemption as the 
basis for withholding information regarding its employees or 
                     
1 In oral argument on appeal, counsel for VSU stated that 
the reports were returned to him and not delivered to the 
clerk of the trial court. 
 
 
3
former employees and that its failure to disclose that 
information was not willful.  The court therefore denied 
Bland’s claim for civil penalties.  Although the court’s final 
order was silent on the subject, the court ruled from the 
bench at the hearing that Bland was entitled to any personnel 
information regarding Bland himself that was contained in the 
reports.  Counsel for VSU agreed to provide Bland with the 
originally redacted information that pertained to him. 
Six weeks after the hearing, but before the entry of the 
final order, Bland made a motion in the trial court for the 
entry of an order requiring VSU to produce the complete 2003 
and 2004 AACSB reports in order that they could be made a part 
of the record for the purpose of appeal.2  The court denied the 
motion and entered a final order.  Thus, the reports that the 
court had examined and relied upon to make its decision were 
not made a part of the record. 
 
We awarded Bland an appeal.  He assigned error (1) to the 
trial court’s failure to find that VSU had violated the FOIA, 
(2) to the trial court’s refusal to permit the record to be 
                                                                
 
2 Bland also asserted in his motion that VSU had provided 
him with some, but not all, of the information in the reports 
that pertained to him personally.  When the motion was argued, 
counsel for VSU provided Bland with additional information 
from the reports pertaining to Bland. Counsel for VSU stated 
that it had been omitted through oversight. 
 
 
4
completed, and (3) to the denial of his constitutional due 
process rights.  In the circumstances of this case, the issue 
raised by the second assignment of error is dispositive. 
Analysis 
 
The exclusion from the record of any evidence that the 
trial court has considered in reaching its decision, when the 
evidence has been properly tendered for the record by a 
litigant, impedes appellate review and constitutes an abuse of 
discretion.  An exhibit offered in evidence, whether admitted 
or not, becomes a part of the record when initialed by the 
trial judge, and not before.  Rule 5:10(a)(3).  The duty of 
the trial judge to make up the record in this respect is a 
judicial function, and cannot be delegated.  Town of Falls 
Church v. Myers, 187 Va. 110, 119, 46 S.E.2d 31, 36 (1948).  
An appellate court cannot review the correctness of a trial 
court’s decision unless the evidence upon which the trial 
court relied is included in the record on appeal.  Packer v. 
Hornsby, 221 Va. 117, 121, 267 S.E.2d 140, 142 (1980). 
The lack of such a record precludes our consideration of 
Bland’s first assignment of error.  The question whether the 
trial court correctly ruled upon the applicability of the 
“personnel exemption” to the reports in issue can only be 
answered by an inspection of the reports themselves. 
 
5
 
Bland’s third assignment of error is subsumed by the 
second.  His contention that his constitutional rights were 
violated is based only upon the trial court’s refusal to 
complete the record by including the complete 2003 and 2004 
AACSB reports.  Our ruling on the second assignment of error 
makes consideration of the constitutional question 
unnecessary.  See Volkswagen of America v. Smit, 266 Va. 444, 
454, 587 S.E.2d 526, 532 (2003) (constitutional questions will 
not be decided if the case can be decided on other grounds); 
Keller v. Denny, 232 Va. 512, 516, 352 S.E.2d 327, 329 (1987) 
(same). 
Conclusion 
 
This appeal illustrates a problem seemingly endemic to 
FOIA cases.  Following LeMond v. McElroy, 239 Va. 515, 391 
S.E.2d 309 (1990), and Moore v. Maroney, 258 Va. 21, 516 
S.E.2d 9 (1999), this is the third appeal of an FOIA decision 
in which appellate review has been obstructed by the absence 
of the essential record.  As we pointed out in those cases, we 
cannot “decide the issue in a vacuum;” we encouraged the 
filing of allegedly confidential records for in camera 
inspection by the trial court and, if necessary, by an 
appellate court.  LeMond, 239 Va. at 520, 391 S.E.2d at 312; 
Moore, 258 Va. at 27, 516 S.E.2d at 12.  Concerns of 
confidentiality may be met by an order of the trial court 
 
6
directing that the records be kept under seal, a course 
suggested by Bland in the present case. 
In LeMond and Moore, the failure to preserve the 
essential record was the fault of the litigants.  Because the 
responsibility for presenting an adequate appellate record was 
upon the appellants seeking reversal of the trial courts’ 
decisions, we affirmed, without approving, the judgments of 
the trial courts in both cases.  LeMond, 239 Va. at 520-21, 
391 S.E.2d at 312; Moore, 258 Va. at 27, 516 S.E.2d at 12-13.  
Here, by contrast, Bland, the appellant, moved the trial court 
to include the essential reports in the record under seal, but 
VSU opposed the motion and the trial court denied it.  That 
ruling effectively prevented appellate review and was an abuse 
of discretion requiring reversal. 
Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment of the trial 
court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent 
with this opinion, limited to the issue raised by Bland’s 
first assignment of error. 
Reversed and remanded.