Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Keenan, and 

Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice 

LUCAS E. WALL 

OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSCOE B. STEPHENSON, JR. 

v. Record No. 951927 

 September 13, 1996 

FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL. 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY 

Gerald Bruce Lee, Judge 

 In this appeal, we decide whether The Virginia Freedom of 

Information Act, Code § 2.1-340, et seq. (the Act), requires the 

disclosure of the total number of votes received by each 

candidate in a public high school student election. 

 On May 3, 1995, an election was conducted at Centreville 

High School, a public school in Fairfax County. In the election, 

the students were afforded the opportunity to elect class 

officers for the classes graduating in 1996, 1997, and 1998. The 

students also had the opportunity to elect the school's student 

representatives to the Student Advisory Committee (SAC). The 

representatives, along with the SAC representatives from the 

other Fairfax County high schools, elect a student representative 

to the county school board. 

 Students who wished to vote were furnished a computer 

"Scantron" sheet upon which they recorded their choices. 

Thereafter, representatives of the school's Student Government 

Association (SGA) collected the Scantron sheets and delivered 

them to Mary Katherine Totten, a teacher and SGA advisor. 

Totten, with the assistance of a class sponsor, then tabulated 

the election results, and Totten retained the sheets and the 

tabulated results in her exclusive possession. 
- 2 - 

 Lucas Wall, a student at the time, was the Editor-in-Chief 

of the Centreville Sentinel, the school's student newspaper. 

Prior to the election, Wall made a request, pursuant to the Act, 

to be given the vote totals received by each student candidate. 

The request was delivered to Totten and Pamela Latt, the school's 

principal. In a written response, Latt declined to release the 

vote totals to Wall. She informed Wall, however, that each 

student candidate would have access to his own vote total. 

Additionally, the total number of students who voted in the 

election was available to the entire student body. 

 In explaining her position, Latt stated that the individual 

vote totals did not constitute "official records," as defined in 

the Act. She further stated that, even if the totals were 

"official records," they were also "scholastic records" and, 

thus, exempt from disclosure under the Act. Latt also expressed 

concern that the release of individual vote totals likely would 

embarrass and humiliate those students who lost the election and 

discourage many students from participating in the election 

process. Totten shared Latt's views regarding the possible 

effect the release of individual vote totals might have upon 

student participation. 

 Thereupon, Wall filed a petition for mandamus against the 

Fairfax County School Board and Totten. Following an ore tenus

hearing, the trial court refused to order mandamus. The court 

concluded that, although the individual vote totals were 
- 3 - 

"official records" subject to the Act, they, nonetheless, fell 

within the Act's exemption for "scholastic records." We awarded 

Wall an appeal.1

 We will assume, without deciding, that a student candidate's 

individual vote total is an "official record" under the Act and, 

therefore, must be disclosed absent an applicable exclusion.2 

Thus, the issue for decision is whether such information may be 

withheld from disclosure pursuant to the Act's "scholastic 

records" exemption. 

 Pursuant to Code § 2.1-342(B)(3), "scholastic records . . . 

containing information concerning identifiable individuals" are 

excluded from the provisions of the Act, "but [they] may be 

disclosed by the custodian in his discretion, except where such 

disclosure is prohibited by law." The term "[s]cholastic 

records," as used in the Act, means, in pertinent part, 

 those records, files, documents, and other materials 

containing information about a student and maintained 

by a public body which is an educational agency or 

institution or by a person acting for such agency or 

 

 1In view of our decision, we do not consider the assignment 

of cross-error regarding whether the individual vote totals were 

"official records" subject to the Act. 

 2The Act defines "[o]fficial records" as follows: 

 [A]ll written or printed books, papers, letters, 

documents, maps and tapes, photographs, films, sound 

recordings, reports or other material, regardless of 

physical form or characteristics, prepared, owned, or 

in the possession of a public body or any employee or 

officer of a public body in the transaction of public 

business. 

Code § 2.1-341. 
- 4 - 

institution. 

Code § 2.1-341. (Emphasis added.) 

 It is firmly established that, when a statute is clear and 

unambiguous, a court must accept its plain meaning and not resort 

to rules of construction or extrinsic evidence. Carr v. Forst, 

249 Va. 66, 69-70, 453 S.E.2d 274, 276 (1995). Therefore, 

applying the plain-meaning rule to Code §§ 2.1-341 and -342(B)(3) 

in the present case, we conclude that the material Wall seeks is 

maintained by an educational institution, contains information 

about identifiable students, and is exempt from mandatory 

disclosure under the Act.3

 Notwithstanding the plain meaning of Code §§ 2.1-341 and 

-342(B)(3), Wall endeavors to buttress his claim by invoking Code 

§ 22.1-287(C), a part of the Education Title of the Code. That 

section states that various restrictions on the release of 

information about pupils "shall not apply to the giving of 

information by school personnel concerning participation in 

athletics and other school activities, the winning of scholastic 

or other honors and awards, and other like information." 

 We do not see how Code § 22.1-287(C) helps Wall. Even if we 

 

 3We reach this conclusion with full awareness of the policy 

expressly stated in Code § 2.1-340.1. This Code section 

provides, in pertinent part, that the Act "shall be liberally 

construed to promote an increased awareness by all persons of 

governmental activities . . . [, and] [a]ny exception or 

exemption from applicability shall be narrowly construed in order 

that no thing which should be public may be hidden from any 

person." 
- 5 - 

assume that it permits the disclosure of the information he 

seeks, it clearly does not require such disclosure. The issue 

presented in this appeal is whether the Act requires disclosure, 

and the Act clearly provides that disclosure of even exempt 

information is in the custodian's discretion, except where such 

disclosure is prohibited by law. Code § 2.1-342(B). 

 Consequently, we hold that the trial court properly ruled 

that the information sought by Wall was exempt from disclosure 

under the Act. Accordingly, we will affirm the trial court's 

judgment. 

Affirmed.