Citizens, you are needed

Another closed meeting


The Goochland County board of supervisors will meet at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 at 7 p.m. in the board meeting room of the county administration building at 1800 Sandy Hook Road in Courthouse Village.
Once again, citizens are urged to signify by their presence that they do not want the “utilities mess” to be swept under the rug.
Recent discovery of additional uncashed checks in a utilities department safe, that was believed to have been emptied several weeks ago, needs investigation and explanation.
The board is expected to meet in closed session to discuss the upcoming forensic audit. However, comments below made by H. Watkins Ellerson in an email to members of the board of supervisors (printed below with the author’s permission) could change that. Ellerson, an attorney who lives in western Goochland, has extensive experience in government matters.
In addition, the board could also hear troubling new information about the serious danger posed by the venting of methane gas on or near soccer fields at Hidden Rock Park.

Email to supervisors Creasey, Pryor and Quarles

Gentlemen:

I just completed a Website review of the Minutes of the Goochland Co. Board of Supervisors from Jan. 6, 2009 (p. 16) and in 2008, Dec. 23 (the entire meeting) and Dec. 2 (p.11). All of this has taken over an hour, and I just don't have time to "fly-speck" any more. I don't think I need to, as these recent findings confirm my recollections of past practices and the stories I have heard out in the "ether."

I regret the Minutes show unanimous roll-call consent to enter into closed meetings, but in my opinion (and I realize it is JUST my opinion), the open-govt. laws are sorely violated by the procedures, insofar as they are enumerated in those Minutes.

As I said in my "primer" (attached), I believe the Minutes MUST reflect FULL compliance, and they do not in any case.

Your Board of Supervisors is going into closed meetings WAY too often, in my opinion. I have NEVER witnessed the frequency of use of closed meetings any more than by the Goochland Board of Supervisors. In my opinion, I fear you are not getting full and proper legal advice thereon.

The most glaring omission from the Minutes of all 3 meetings is the failure to note a roll-call vote taken AFTER the meetings to have each member of the Board declare that there was precise compliance with the open-govt. laws by enumerating SPECIFICALLY the items discussed, AND a declaration that there were no "secret" agreements. The declaration to the contrary by any Supervisor is not fatal to the propriety of the meeting, but I have found no exception to the requirement of the post-meeting poll.

FURTHER: a closed meeting cannot be held on "generic" grounds, like "real estate" or "legal discussion," nor even for "litigation." I believe there MUST be a declaration PRIOR to the vote to go into closed meeting not only of the factually specified matter to be discussed (specifics contained in the motion for the closed meeting), but in the case of litigation or a real estate sale or purchase, I think it must also SPECIFICALLY STATE that the County's negotiating or bargaining strategies and positions WILL BE unduly compromised if such are discussed openly. It may even be required that the specific nature of the impairment also be disclosed! I am not sure of that.

None of that was done in those cases. Citing a code section (not even labeled as such in the Minutes) is not enough. The actual factual bases for the actions must be stated.

As for closed meetings about "specifically named" personnel, the Minutes do not reflect the identities of those employees. I think they must. If stated in open meeting, then the Minutes must also reflect those identities, and they are not stated in any of them.

Also, discussion of the "successor Administrator" is not a valid grounds for closed meetings, where merely the job description or requirements are being discussed as opposed to the specific confidential information of a specific applicant, whom I believe must be identified as such in the motion and the Minutes. The names of any candidates being generally considered are not validly withheld from the public, in my opinion.

In short, I think the Goochland Co. Board of Supervisors, with the consent of each of you (because of the unanimous votes), has been in blatant violation of the open-government laws many times just in the past 2 months!

That is a lot of fines for each of you personally if the circuit court so says.

Things need to tighten up. The Board of Supervisors had better quit meeting in secret so much. Some of you need to start objecting to some of those meetings and always the lax procedures. A vote to close the meeting is a tacit embrace of any (flawed) procedures followed.

And, those who think they are being well-served by the County Atty. had better start looking at things more closely.

One other thing I want to note about the Minutes of Jan. 6:

In the "Public Comment" portion (p. 3), it is noted that "Ann James ... expressed her thoughts on the Public Utilities Department breakdown."

Apparently so. From what I have heard about her appearance (since I was not there), I would say that is an extraordinary example of understatement!

I am sure it was not pleasant to be on the receiving end of the harsh criticism that I heard about regarding the mess at the Public Utilities Dept., but I think that the critical nature of Ms. James's remarks should have been memorialized to some degree of specificity. This "missing checks" scandal is big news, but the Minutes reflect none of that. I am convinced that these Minutes are bowdlerized fluff to make the Board of Supervisors look good, and yet the truth is making the Board look bad. Why edit out such criticism in such a blatant fashion? It only reflects poorly on the Board. It makes the Board look fearful and reinforces the credibility of the criticism!

Wat Ellerson