As of 1:41 PM, June 22, 2010, there is no notice of the special meeting to be held by Christiansburg, VA at 7:30 PM on that same date on the Calendar provided by the Town of Christiansburg.
The calendar entry still maintains that this is a work session only for the discussion of the budget. On 6/17/10 at 2:10 PM, PR Specialist, Becky Hawke sent out an announcement to some group of people via email. That announcement states the following:
Christiansburg Town Council will hold a work session on Tuesday, June 22, 2010, beginning at 7:30p.m. to discuss the F.Y.2010-11 Budget. The meeting will be held in Council Chambers, 100 E. Main St.
While no formal action will be taken, citizens are welcome to attend the work session.
On 6/21/10 at 6:05PM, this notice was sent out from the Clerk of Council:
The Christiansburg Town Council agenda for June 22, 2010 is now available.
The link provided takes you to a pdf where this is found:
A G E N D A
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CHRISTIANSBURG TOWN COUNCIL
CHRISTIANSBURG TOWN HALL
100 EAST MAIN STREET
JUNE 22, 2010 – 7:30 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
SPECIAL MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. DISCUSSIONS BY MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
1. Budget for Fiscal Year 2010 – 2011.
REMARKS:
2. CLOSED MEETING:
a. Request for a Closed Meeting under Section 2.2-3711 A(1), Code of Virginia, for the discussion of personnel
matters; and Section 2.2-3711 A(7), Code of Virginia, for the discussion and consideration of probable
litigation requiring the provision of legal advice by legal counsel.
REMARKS:
b. Out of Closed Meeting.
c. Council Action on the Matter.
REMARKS:
III. ADJOURN
From the Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council you find the following:
§ 2.2-3711(A)(1): Personnel. Provides an exemption for:
Discussion, consideration or interviews of prospective candidates for employment; assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining or resignation of specific public officers, appointees or employees of any public body; and evaluation of performance of departments or schools of public institutions of higher education where such evaluation will necessarily involve discussion of the performance of specific individuals. Any teacher shall be permitted to be present during a closed meeting in which there is a discussion or consideration of a disciplinary matter that involves the teacher and some student and the student involved in the matter is present, provided the teacher makes a written request to be present to the presiding officer of the appropriate board.
§ 2.2-3711(A)(7): Legal advice. Provides an exemption for:
Consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members or consultants pertaining to actual or probable litigation, where such consultation or briefing in open meeting would adversely affect the negotiating or litigating posture of the public body; and consultation with legal counsel employed or retained by a public body regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel. For the purposes of this subdivision, “probable litigation” means litigation that has been specifically threatened or on which the public body or its legal counsel has a reasonable basis to believe will be commenced by or against a known party. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to permit the closure of a meeting merely because an attorney representing the public body is in attendance or is consulted on a matter.
Now for some Freedom of Information Advisory Council interpretations on similar matters:
In particular, one relevant section of the Code is noted:
Now, it is just my opinion, but I feel that it is unacceptable to ‘change horses in mid-stream’. What has happened here is that people have been invited to a Square Dance. Suddenly, someone decides to have a Ballroom Dance instead but hardly anyone is notified of the change. You do not just randomly change things on such short notice without good cause. Unless there is an emergency involving the items on the ‘closed meeting’ agenda, Council and the citizens would be better served by saving that meeting for the next Town Council meeting and putting in the proper agenda. Section D of State Code 2.1-343 used the term ‘ reasonable under the circumstances’. However, it also means that the public would have to have been notified ‘contemporaneously by posting a notice at the town hall …’. By use of the word ‘contemporaneously’, citizens have the right to assume that citizen notice would have coincided with council members notice of the meeting. It would also stand to reason that ALL council members were notified at the same time. While the ‘reasonable under the circumstances’ issue would likely be one for the Courts to determine, Council members, the Mayor, and the Town Manager all know who knew about this meeting and when. They know the right thing, the honest thing. Now, what will they do about it?
Is this a good faith effort on the part of Town Council to comply with FOIA and to keep citizens informed?
