What's New in Fairfax County Public Schools?

Legal Invoices, Court Cases, Noncompliance, Closed Meeting Minutes, Toxic Emails, and the Failure to Secure the Privacy of 35,000+ Students

Fairfax County Public School (FCPS) included unredacted records for over 35,000 students within my own kids' educational records.

Since 2016, I've warned FCPS about privacy violations. In 2017, I started filing state complaints based on privacy violations and withholding educational records. FCPS repeatedly denied or minimized the privacy violations and VDOE repeatedly failed its supervisory duties to ensure compliance. Sometimes VDOE made a finding, sometimes it didn't. When it did make a finding, the corrective action plan failed to ensure the noncompliance stopped.

Seven years later, my head and heart hurt too much to write yet another article on privacy violations.

Please head over to The 74 Million and read Linda Jacobson's in-depth investigative article on FCPS' failure to secure the privacy of the 35,000+ students, and more: "Exclusive: Virginia’s Fairfax Schools Expose Thousands of Sensitive Student Records" If you're curious about the types of records, see the following list:

  • 33,000+ students: Nine spreadsheets listing all students divisionwide with IEPs or 504 Plans. Five list over 26,000 students and four list over 33,000 students.
  • 10,000+ students: December 1 count spreadsheet
  • 1,593 students: Academic advising spreadsheet for 9th and 10th grade students by PE classes and 11th grade students by History class
  • 1,500+ students: 7,468 teacher recommendations and notes spreadsheet
  • 1,400+ students: PSAT and PSAT NMSQT scores
  • 1,000+ students: FCPSMed caseload, related services
  • 1,000+ students: mental health tracking data, to include marking students with suicidal ideation, drug addiction, domestic violence at home, and so on.
  • 1,000+ students: spreadsheet listing students and their intent to attend.
  • 300+ students: spreadsheet of course requests for students, listing their primary disability and placement
  • 200+ students: list of students with IEPs due.
  • 150+ students:  three spreadsheets of testing accommodations for sped students
  • 150+ students: Grade 4-6 PE gradebook
  • 100+ students: spreadsheet of sped and esol 1-6b students taking an SOL
  • 100+ students: Three quarters of grades for sped students, pulled according to the sped teacher to whom they’re assigned.
  • 100+ students: multiple spreadsheets listing legal matters
  • 90 students: 2019 End of Year goal data
  • 50+ students: Math eCart data
  • 1: One FCPS state complaint response for a student
  • 1: One heartbreaking email from a father, telling a school principal about his child being sexually assaulted

Also included in my kids' educational records:

  • Invoices
  • Budgets
  • Closed meeting minutes
  • Emails (toxic and otherwise)
  • Proof that some "leaders" have based special education-related decisions on how connected a parent is, rather than what's appropriate for the student (and what happens to be in line with federal regulations)

Scroll down to start reading these records—or stick with me for a bit of background provided within the following paragraphs.

It's Deja Vu All Over Again

In 2021, FCPS provided FCPS parent Debra Tisler with a FOIA response including FCPS legal invoices. Debra shared them with me. I immediately started redacting all 1,316 pages (because FCPS failed to redact private information about students), and then began publishing information related to the legal invoices.

FCPS' response was to take us to court and lead the public to believe it sued us because it was concerned about private student information being published. It failed to advise the public that, during our first court appearance, its lawyer Ryan Bates stated FCPS' appreciation that student names had been redacted before documents were published.

"As far as we can tell, and I believe as — as to what was posted on the website, I think it was less than 1000 [pages] was actually posted on the website. And from what we can tell, they redacted all of the student names, and we appreciate that." ~ Ryan Bates, FCPS counsel

Judge Richard E. Gardiner's final decision was in favor of me and Debra. He compared the case to the Pentagon Papers, stated the case was “about as much a prior restraint as there ever could be”, and characterized one of the Board’s arguments as “almost frivolous.” In addition, Gardiner stated the following:

“What we’re doing here is — what the defendants are doing is enforcing their rights under the First Amendment, and those rights, enforcing their rights under the First Amendment, is about as high in the public interest scale as you can get.”

Two years later . . .

Legal Invoices, Court Cases, Noncompliance, Closed Meeting Minutes, Toxic Emails, and More

A Few Notes Before You Start Reading

Reviews and Redactions: I spent the past week going through thousands of pages of records and redacting names and initials of students, parents, plaintiffs in various cases; case numbers; and information about anyone and anything I didn't recognize and/or haven't yet had time to verify is already in the public arena. The items left unredacted: Names of FCPS lawyers and leadership; names of lawyers in the community who are already known for working on special education cases related to FCPS families; names of individuals who submitted FOIA requests (since this can be FOIA'd), and/or related information that already is in the public arena.

Complaints and Alerts: I filed complaints with U.S. Department of Education's (USDOE) Office for Civil Rights and Office of Inspector General; made USDOE's Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), Lisa Coons, VDOE's Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Michelle Reid, FCPS's superintendent, aware of the issues; and contacted families. For the latter, I've been compiling files for families whose information appears on numerous occasions within my own kids' educational records. In the interest of time, I started with families I know and/or know of, and whose contact information I already have. This has been a slow process, because I'm redacting each document before calling the families and sending the records.

August 26, 2019 to September 9, 2019: FCPS Staff on Appealing VDOE Decision Against FCPS & Thoughts on "Consent" for Comprehensive Evaluations

In 2019 a parent won a state complaint against FCPS. She repeatedly provided FCPS consent to administer a comprehensive evaluation to her child. FCPS pushed back, wanting her to sign off on the evaluations it had chosen and specified on its form. The parent continued to tell FCPS she consented to a comprehensive evaluation. FCPS continued pushing back. This went on for about a year, the student wasn't evaluated, the parent filed a state complaint — and the parent won.

FCPS staff immediately expressed a wish to appeal in this string of emails. Two comments by FCPS's out-of-house counsel John Cafferky jumped out at me:

"Form or no form, it seems to me that school divisions should not have to guess as to which evaluations they have permission to conduct."

". . . since ordinarily VDOE will not hold execution of CAP pending the disposition of a state complaint appeal -- you might consider holding an IEP, and just coming to the conclusion that this alleged noncompliance did not result in any educational deprivation that requires compensatory education. Simply put, do we think that the failure to conduct the specified evaluation at the time when "consent" was allegedly received, and the time they were actually conducted (were they?) made any substantive difference to the education of this student? If not, we should consider having an IEP team say that. My experience is that VDOE ordinarily will not second-guess this type of substantive decision by an IEP team considering compensatory education."

emails

September 2019: FCPS E-mails About Paying for/Refusing an IEE

FCPS' Independent Educational Evaluations (IEE) emails, circa 2019, provide an interesting FCPS side to the story of "16 Years of Noncompliance: Virginia Department of Education Fails Students and to Perform Its General Supervisory Duties.

September 9, 2019: 

Dawn Schaefer emailed Jane Strong: 

“We expected [Parent] to choose Mindwell based on her chatter on social media and with us. I’m wondering if you’d like us to grant the full cost at Mindwell or hold the line at $2400. This evaluation would not be above and beyond the evaluations done by other evaluators for our established rate of $2400.”

September 10, 2019:

Dawn Schaefer emailed Jane Strong: 

“We just poured over our data since 2017, and we have very rarely had evaluators seek additional payment from us. Mindwell has been charging $3600-4000 for psychoeducational evaluations since at least 2017. [Parent] has received all of the documentation regarding our fee setting via FOIA. Lourrie is going to respond to her in the morning and ask what her data is to say the customary cost is $3800.”

Jane Strong emailed Dawn Schaefer:

“Have we paid mindwell that high a fee in the past?”

Dawn Schaefer emailed Jane Strong:

“Yes, prior to us resetting our fee schedule in May 2017.”

September 26, 2019:

Lourrie Duddridge responded to another staff member about the IEE-related FOIA submitted by the parent and admitted FCPS' 2019 rates were out of date:

"We did no research in terms of usual and customary costs for the 18 - 19 school year."

FCPS knew its rates were outdated and that it had paid the same Mindwell provider the same amount at least two years prior, but chose to refuse the parent's request and failed to file for due process to defend its decision. Twelve years earlier, FCPS took the same action against the same parent. Back then, VDOE found against FCPS. But, 12 years later? Nope.

emails (These are out of order, so you'll have to jump around just a bit.)

Around the same time, I was trying to obtain an IEE  and contacted numerous providers in the area. Their rates were above FCPS' IEE fee cap or their evaluations were tailored for FCPS' pricing, hence they weren't comprehensive. I continued to send the information I obtained to Jen Krempasky to make her aware of the current pricing. She ignored the data provided to her.

September 29, 2019:

Dawn Schaefer emailed Jane Strong and Teresa Johnson:

"Her berating of Jen over IEE rates is becoming ridiculous, and is simply further fodder for the VDOE complaint and/or OCR complaint she's getting ready to file over IEEs.

"I'd like to shut this down but I know no matter what we do it won't end. She's advising multiple families so paying for whatever evaluation she wants won't do any good either."

Dawn's comments indicate that she made a decision related provision of an IEE to one of my kids based on me talking to other families, rather than on the need of my child. In addition, I wasn't "berating" Jen. I was pointing out all the data collected, which showed FCPS' rates to be out of date—something Lourrie Duddridge advised another staff member three days prior.

However, I did file a state complaint in 2022—and won.

October 2, 2020 (see more on this below), after VDOE made FCPS aware of its findings, Dawn Schaefer expressed an interest in appealing the decision, for reasons other than being in compliance with IDEA and implementing state regulations.

November 27, 2019: Blankinship & Keith Billing Statements

email / Blankingship & Keith November 2019 Billing Statements

January 7, 2020: In-House Counsel John Foster's Closed Meeting Agenda

This is an email from FCPS' in-house counsel John Foster, with his agenda for what he plans to handle in the closed meeting.

email

February 19, 2020: In-House Counsel John Foster's Litigations List of Students and Parents

According to FCPS counsel John Foster, during a closed session, FCSB requested "a list of students, and their parents, who 1) are in litigation against the School Board or FCPS, or have threatened to file a lawsuit, or 2) are involved in a special education matter with FCPS."

email / Litigation List

July 8, 2020: In-House Counsel John Foster's on FCSB's Annual Organizing Resolution, Including Appointment of Outside Law Firms

According to FCPS counsel John Foster' July 8, 2020, email, on July 9, 2020, "the School Board will approve its annual organizing resolution, including the annual appointment of outside law firms 'as assigned and managed by the Office of Division Counsel.' Several of you have asked about the outside firms and why and how they are chosen for inclusion in the resolution. Please see the attached memorandum that discusses those questions."

The memorandum is missing, but scroll down to November 9, 2020, for the longer string in this email and to view a later attachment.

email

September 1 and 2, 2020:

FCPS knew that a program it proposed for years division wide, for students who have Dyslexia, is not intensive enough for students who have Dyslexia. Yet, even though parent after parent expressed concerns about their students not progressing and/or about the appropriateness of the program—and at least two went so far as to file for due process—FCPS continued to propose it.

September 1, 2020:

FCPS' long-time lawyer John Cafferky emailed the following to FCPS staff, regarding an upcoming due process hearing for a student who has Dyslexia:

"With respect to his reading issues, what have we proposed? I know that we disagree with Alvey's comments about JW in the [REDACTED] decision, but it is true that Wilson's own literature says that JW is intensive enough for students w/ dyslexia. In the [REDACTED] hearing, Dottie did her level best to convince him that it nonetheless was, but could not. Frankly, I had the impression from Dottie that in that case, she would liked to have had "Big Wilson" to offer, but didn't."

 September 2, 2020:

John corrected his earlier statement in a subsequent email to FCPS staff.

"One correction to my questions, which I'm sure you all picked up, is that in item 3, the second sentence should say, "I know that we disagree with Alvey's comments about JW in the [REDACTED] decision, but it is true that Wilson's own literature says that JW is not intensive enough for students w/ dyslexia." [emphasis added]

September 2, 2020: Updated Hearing List

Dawn Schaefer emailed an updated hearings list to "keep things straight regarding all of the new hearings that were requested within the last week or so."

email / Current hearings as of 9.2.20

September 3, 2020: 1) Updated Hearing List & 2) Resolution Meeting Advice from John Cafferky

1) email / Current hearings as of 9.3.20

2) FCPS's out-of-house counsel John Cafferky is acknowledged by VDOE in a list of "persons who contributed to the development of ["2008 Parents' Guide to Special Education Dispute Resolution"] and/or who served as a reviewer." VDOE goes on to state, "We appreciate their efforts in assisting us produce a document that will serve as a resource for parents and service providers."

Although it is a guide for parents and service providers, its section on resolution meetings doesn't include the reminder Cafferky provided to FCPS staff in this September 3, 2020, email:

"Remember that even if it does not lead to a resolution, a resolution meeting is a good opportunity to make whatever proposal you want the hearing officer to consider, and press the other side for information. . . . Someone should take good notes. We can then do a summary letter that's admissible in the case."

If VDOE updates the guide, perhaps it will include Cafferky's reminder that the resolution meeting can be used to "press the other side for information".

email

September 8, 2020: Agenda for FCPS OSEPS Leadership Meeting

email / OSEPS Leadership meeting 9-9-20

September 9, 2020: Updated Hearing List

email / Current hearings as of 9.9.20

September 10, 2020: Updated Hearing List

Dawn's September 10, 2020: Updated Hearing List

Dawn's email / Current hearings as of 9.10.20

September 16, 2020: Updated Hearing List

Dawn's September 16, 2020: Updated Hearing List

Dawn's email / Current hearings as of 9.16.20

September 20, 2020: Updated Hearing List

email / Current hearings as of 9.20.20

October 1, 2020: Updated Hearing List

email / Current hearings as of 9.30.2020

October 2, 2020: Dawn Schaefer's Email on Appealing a VDOE Complaint Finding

On this day, VDOE notified FCPS that it lost an IEE-related state complaint I filed. The complaint was rooted in FCPS' refusal to comply with the U.S. Department of Education's findings from June 2020, and its directive that the entire state had to comply with federal regulations related to IEEs. Dawn's response follows below:

"I think we need to appeal the findings regarding IEEs. VDOE has not changed their regulation yet, and they are essentially telling us we have to implement OSEP's opinion-- that they are apparently appealing themselves. It makes no sense. I'll stand down if others think we should just pay for the IEE. Just know this finding has far reaching consequences. This parent is very well-connected and has her own advocacy website."

I thought decisions regarding students who have special education needs were supposed to be based on 1) compliance with IDEA and implementing state regulations and 2) the unique needs of the student.

Dawn's email

Additional Reading:

October 9, 2020: Pending Legal Fees = $284,081.33

email / Pending legal fees

October 12, 2020: Pending Legal Fees = $599,612.73

email / Pending legal fees sheet 1 / Pending legal fees sheet 2 / FMR

October 22, 2020: Updated Hearing List

email / current hearings

October 22, 2020–April 14, 2021: Medicaid, Caseload, Dec 1 Count Conversations

emails

October 26, 2020: Pending Legal Fees = $632,370.58

email / Pending legal fees sheets 1 and 2 / FMR

October 29, 2020: Updated Hearing List

email / current hearings

November 2, 2020: Updated Hearing List

email / current hearings

November 9, 2020: In-House Counsel John Foster, Part Deux

This strand began in a July 2020 email from John Foster, about the annual appointment of outside law firms (see earlier listing above). The strand was expanded to include more messages and a later attachment.

email / Case information

November 10, 2020: Updated Hearing List

email / current hearings

November 13, 2020: Updated Hearing List

email / current hearings

February 25, 2021: Draft List of Active Lawsuits

Draft List

February 26, 2021: Blankingship & Keith's January 2021 Billing Statements

email / Blankingship & Keith Billing Statements / January 2021 Billing Summary Statement

March 4, 2021: John Foster's Weekly Emails for Meetings with "Scott"

According to her March 4, 2021, email to John Foster, Anne Benedicto provided an email each Thursday afternoon in advance of John's meetings with "Scott" and there is a "private BoardDocs" on which the case information was being posted.

email / lawsuits - updates JEF spreadsheet as of 2_25_2021 / Case information

April 22, 2021: John Foster's Weekly Emails for Meetings with "Scott"

Anne Benedicto confirmed the following about her weekly emails to John Foster:

"Per your request to send you an update each Thursday afternoon (in advance of your Friday meetings with Scott), please see attached the updated spreadsheet through 4-22-2021. This is information has been gathered from your email Inbox regarding new and ongoing Lawsuits to include documents and emails associated with these matters."

email / spreadsheets

April 26, 2021: John Foster's Weekly Check-In

email / pending invoices needing approval / FMR as of 4_26_2021 / Pending invoice breakdown sheet 1 / Pending invoice breakdown sheet 2 / 4_21_2021 Chairs Meeting Notes

April 28, 2021: $276,736.47, "Non-Cares"; $183,759.50, "Cares Act"

Reimbursements FY21 thru 4.28.21

April 27, 2021: FMR

FMR

April 29, 2021

email / Lawsuits - updated JEF spreadsheet 4-29-2021

April 30, 2021: Robert Falconi's Writing Exercise, From 2019 FCPS Interview

Anne Benedicto emails John Foster "the writing exercise and specifically the writing exercise from Bob Falconi when he interviewed for the staff attorney position in 2019."

email / Writing Exercise - Staff Attorney - Nov 2019 / Writing Exercise - Robert Falconi - Nov 2019 

May 3, 2021: School Board Meeting Notes, Invoices, $$$ Spent

email / pending approvals needed as of 5-3-2-21 / FMR as of 5_3_2021 / Pending invoice breakdown 5-3-2021 sheet 1 / Pending invoice breakdown 5-3-2021 sheet 2 / 4_28_2021 Chairs Meeting Notes / Updated New and Ongoing Lawsuits as of 4-29-2021

May 6, 2021: John Foster's Weekly Update

email / Lawsuits - updated JEF spreadsheet 5-6-2021

May 10, 2021: School Board Meeting Notes, Invoices, $$$ Spent

email / pending approvals as of 5-10-21 / FMR as of 5_10_2021 / Pending invoice breakdown 5-10-2021 sheet 1 / Pending invoice breakdown 5-10-2021 sheet 2 / 5_5_2021 Chairs Meeting Notes / Lawsuits - updated JEF spreadsheet 5-6-2021

 

16 comments on “What’s New in Fairfax County Public Schools? Legal Invoices, Court Cases, Noncompliance, Closed Meeting Minutes, Toxic Emails, and the Failure to Secure the Privacy of 35,000+ Students”

Comments are closed.

  1. Why do you feel like it was ok for YOU to read my child’s information?? Even as an advocate for education you have no right to read my child’s private information even if it was accidentally shared with you.

    1. Kate, Thank you for your comment. To my knowledge, I didn’t read your child’s information. I was provided records that were supposed to be my kids’. FCPS’ paralegal and IT expert helped me open digital records, and advised me on copying digital records, that were supposed to be my kids. I had no idea I was copying info for 35,000+ kids. When I opened the records, different kids’ info was intermingled with my own kids. I didn’t spend time looking at everyone else’s kids info. I spent time looking for my own kids’ info. I hope you’ll consider contacting FCPS, VDOE, and SPPO and filing a FERPA complaint. I’ve been making FCPS aware of FERPA violations that have been occurring since 2016 and perhaps other parents will consider speaking up, too. Thanks again for your comment, Kate. Best, Callie

  2. You are a horrible person for posting all this about our children. What is wrong with you? Stop!

    1. Thank you for your email. I didn’t post “all this about our children”. I posted emails from FCPS lawyers admitting they knew a program FCPS pushed for years on kids division wide who have Dyslexia isn’t intensive enough, but they planned to tell a hearing officer that it is intensive enough; emails in which FCPS indicated it retaliates and refused independent educational evaluations (IEEs) at public expense, even though it knew its rates were below market; that FCPS is spending a lot on lawyers instead of kids. The various article show what was shared. Thanks again for your comment.

    1. Thank you for your comment HM. I posted redacted info related to kids I know and had permission to publish. In addition, I posted invoices and emails and other documents showing that FCPS is engaged in retaliation, intentionally pushing inappropriate programs on students, and paying an extraordinary amount on legal fees. Regarding the legal invoices, which I did redact, in 2021 Judge Richard Gardiner stated “it’s clearly also about a matter of public significance because this has to do with legal bills that are being paid by the taxpayers of Fairfax County. And while it’s not a matter of something like the Pentagon papers where we’re talking about the war in Vietnam, certainly it’s a matter of public significance as to what the taxpayers – what bills the taxpayers are having to absorb.” In addition, he stated: “And with regard to the public interest, I don’t think there’s any question in this case that it’s in the public — this is in the public interest. What we’re doing here is — what the defendants are doing is enforcing their rights under the First Amendment, and those rights, enforcing their rights under the First Amendment, is about as high in the public interest scale as you can get.” Thanks again for your comment. Best, Callie

      1. No, you spent time redacting information about other people’s children and posting it. While your intentions may have been good, you went off the rails this egregious action. Did you have help? Who else potentially saw my child’s information?

        Where is that information now?

        You had the opportunity to do the right thing and chose the wrong path in your quest to go after FCPS.

        1. Liz, Thanks for your comment. I have always told FCPS that I never have and never will publish private information about children. Per the files that were published I knew many of the kids and had permission. With the invoices, I feel strongly about taxpayers knowing how FCPS is spending the money, hence you can see the money portions. With the emails, I’m concerned that FCPS’ lawyers and leadership knew FCPS spent years pushing a reading program for students who have Dyslexia, even though the publisher said it isn’t intensive enough, and that the lawyers indicated they had tried, and intended to try again, telling a hearing officer that the program is appropriate. Given FCPS’ historic problems with reading, and specifically with identifying students who have Dyslexia and providing them appropriate programming, I felt it important to share this information. Thanks again for your comment. I appreciate receiving feedback from others. Best, Callie

  4. Have you deleted or destroyed all of the data you possess about other children? Why are we supposed to trust that you can properly redact and securely store this information? You should be held just as accountable as FCPS.

    1. Thank you for your comment, Jennifer. To my knowledge, for the past seven years I’ve been the most vocal parent in FCPS when it comes to holding FCPS accountable for systemic FERPA violations—to the point that parents come to me when they happen, rather than going to FCPS, because the parents are afraid of retaliation, but want to make sure other parents and VDOE are made aware that the breaches occurred. To that point, I’ve been making FCPS and VDOE aware of breaches occurring since 2016 and have been filing complaints with VDOE and SPPO repeatedly since 2018, to include another complaint filed today. I have tracked the breaches here—UPDATED 11.20.23 — FERPA Violation Report Card: Fairfax County Public Schools—and have maintained the privacy of the parents who have shared them with me. Per this recent breach, I deleted records I found. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Thanks, Callie

  5. I’m curious about how you “posted redacted info related to kids (you) know” without reading ANY info about kids you don’t know? You never read any info about kids other than children you know? Even for the kids you knew, did you ask their parents’ permission before reading their information?

    1. Kate, Thank you for your comment. Here is a link to an email that was posted in the article “Updated 11.1.23—16 Years of Noncompliance: Virginia Department of Education Fails Students and to Perform Its General Supervisory Duties“, which provides a good example of what I referred to. I saw the internal email. I knew who it was associated with. I had already written about this issue and used redacted emails with permission of the parent. The email I found overlapped what was already known and didn’t provide private information on the parent’s student. However, it did provide that FCPS knew its independent educational evaluation (IEEs) fee rates were out of date and that it was reviewing the parent an IEE at public expense for a provider to whom it paid the exact provider and the exact provider’s fee at least two years prior. I hope this answers your questions.

  6. Where is the redacted student data? I received a letter from FCPS and then started doing my own internet research on the issue, leading me to this site. I would like to see specifically what information was shared about my particular child so that I can better understand the scope of what was disclosed. I cannot seriously consider filing a data privacy complaint without understanding what specific data was shared.

    1. Thank you for your comment. You might consider contacting Superintendent Michelle Reid and/or your regional superintendent and/or in-house counsel John Foster. When I experienced this previously, it took contacting them to obtain answers. I didn’t keep all the info related to the other kids, so I can’t provide it to you myself. Best, Callie

  7. Callie- It is my understanding that YOU are refusing to turn over the records. If you did not have nefarious intentions then WHY didn’t you give FCPS BACK the incorrectly provided records! I am not absolving them BUT YOU then chose to publish things about the children that were NOT your concern, whether their names were redacted or not. SO YOU in effect ALSO violated HIPPA, Privacy act and Americans with Disability Act! YOU made the situation worse and many of us parents plan on investigating what legal options against YOU we have!

    1. Thank you for your email. I deleted records and did not publish private information about children. I did publish records showing retaliation and other problematic actions FCPS has taken, as well as legal invoices that are of public interest, and which Judge Richard Gardiner stated the same of in 2021: “it’s clearly also about a matter of public significance because this has to do with legal bills that are being paid by the taxpayers of Fairfax County. And while it’s not a matter of something like the Pentagon papers where we’re talking about the war in Vietnam, certainly it’s a matter of public significance as to what the taxpayers – what bills the taxpayers are having to absorb.” In addition, he stated: “And with regard to the public interest, I don’t think there’s any question in this case that it’s in the public — this is in the public interest. What we’re doing here is — what the defendants are doing is enforcing their rights under the First Amendment, and those rights, enforcing their rights under the First Amendment, is about as high in the public interest scale as you can get.” Thanks again for your comment, Callie

Privacy Policy