This rather makes it appear that the Town Charter and/or Code would have had to have been changed before said 3 year contract could have gone into effect. The other localities that I found to have gone with a longer contract for Town Manager, have specifically generated ordinances/charter changes in order to support those. My guess is that the reason for that was this state code.

So, should the town council have been looking at such a contract without having first established that there was such a need as to warrant Charter and/or Code changes. I never heard of any discussions concerning those changes except for some mumblings on how they could enter into the contract first, then change the  Charter/Code afterwards. Maybe there are some lawyers out there who have a better understand of the intent of this State Code and would care to comment.

Is it possible that the 3 year contract was merely a ‘smoke screen’ simply to get people riled up so that they wouldn’t see what was really going on. If so, then you have to wonder who the ‘they’ is in this situation. Certainly with Showalter and Carter being the last to find out anything, they are ruled out.

Of course, the town attorney was in the meetings so if this was actually an issue, one would expect it to have been raised.

Fortunately, the State Code also makes sure that the public will know the full extent of the severance packages of any individuals to which they have or shall be awarded. If it is consistent with the document read by Mr. Barber, there are some pretty vague places that I hope will be clarified before the deal is finalized.

§ 15.2-1510.1. Public announcement of severance packages for certain officials.

Severance benefits provided to any departing official appointed by a local governing body or school board shall be publicly announced by the local governing body or school board, respectively, prior to such departure.

(2006, c. 254; 2007, c. 257.)

It sounds like the details should be pretty specific to me, but I am sure that someone can argue that the Letter of the Law was met in Mr. Barbers statement. However, I wonder if it will truly meet the Spirit of the Law. After all, it is the citizen’s money being used for any such severance benefits.

Here’s what the Town Charter says:

1) He has 10 days in which to deliver all property, books and papers:

§ 2.1 2. Surrender of Papers and Property.–If any person, having been an officer of said town, shall not within ten days after he shall have vacated or been removed from office, and upon notification of request of the council within such time as it may allow, deliver to his successor in office all property, books and papers belonging to the town or appertaining to such office, in possession or under his control, he shall forfeit and pay to the town a sum not exceeding five hundred dollars, to be sued for and recovered with costs; and all books, records and documents used in any office by virtue of any provision of this act, or of any ordinances or order of the town council, or any superior officer of said town, shall be deemed the property of said town and appertaining to said office, and the chief officer thereof shall be held responsible therefor. (1954, c. 240)
2) This raises the big question of who his ‘successor’ is going to be if the job has not been advertised and the position filled by that time. The Town Charter again comes to the rescue:

§ 2.14. Duties of Mayor.–The mayor shall preside at the meetings of the council, voting only in case of a tie, and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by this charter and by general law and such as may be imposed by the council consistent with his office. He shall perform the duties of the town manager during the absence of the town manager or while the office of town manager is vacant. He shall have power to investigate the acts of the various town officers, members of the police, fire and public works departments and all other departments of the town government, whether elected or appointed. The mayor shall have and exercise all power and authority conferred by general law on mayors of towns and not inconsistent with this charter; and shall, from time to time, recommend to the council such measures which he may deem needful for the welfare of the town. (1 954, c. 240; 1968, c. 173)
Clearly, it will be Mayor Ballengee who is taking over the Town Manager’s roles until such time as the position is filled. Christiansburg is lucky to have an Assistant Town Manager, Barry Helms, who is very experienced to be the ‘right-hand’ of the Mayor.

This should make for a fairly smooth transition period, providing ample time for the Town Council to begin development of a job description, job advertising, and the interviews required to find the ‘right person’.

Perhaps the Council will even choose to add some citizens to the review committee as they did with the position of Police Chief. Or, if they choose to handle it like the Rescue Squad, let the members (citizens) elect the person they want to fill the position:) (Wouldn’t that be a hoot!)

Time will tell, and I’ll be watching to see what is done. I am sure it will be an interesting process however it is done.

An additional side note to this is also found in the Town Charter:

§ 2.06. Compensation.–The council shall by ordinance or resolution fix the salaries of all officers and employees of the town elected or appointed by it, or appointed by its authority and may so far as is not inconsistent with the provisions of the charter, define the powers and prescribe the duties of all such officers and employees. To effectuate the powers conferred by general laws as well as the powers herein specifically granted, the council may employ all such persons as may be necessary. (1 954, c. 240)
and in the Town Code:

Sec. 2-3. Record book for ordinances and resolutions–To be kept by Clerk of Council.

The Clerk of the Council shall enter in a well-bound book copies of all ordinances and resolutions passed by the Council. The book in which such ordinances and resolutions are thus entered shall be known as the “Ordinances and Resolutions of the Town of Christiansburg.” The Clerk of the Council shall index such book. (Code 1972, § 2-3)

• Revenue from local taxes and fees increased by 120.06%
• Expenditures increased by 120.32%

Expenses:

• Government Admin Expenses increased by 156.35%
• Public Safety Expenses increased by 234.30%
• Public Works Expenses increased by 128.30%
• Parks & Recreation Expenses increased by 315.24%

Revenue:

• Real Property Revenue increased by 156.20%
• Public Service Corporation Revenue increased by 34.39%
• Machinery and Tools Revenue increased by 178.34%
• Penalties decreased by 36.53%
• Interest increased by 0.79%
• Other Local Taxes increased by 173.44%
• Permits, Fees, & Licenses increased by 241.76%
• Charges for Services increased by 374.55%
• Miscellaneous Revenue increased by 1,499.73%

Specific to Local Revenue:

• Local Sales and Use Tax increased by 87.14%
• Business License Taxes increased by 264.35%
• Franchise License Tax dropped by 18.69%
• Hotel and Motel Taxes increased by 359.70%
• Restaurant and Food Taxes increased by 192.83%

Safety Expenses:

• Law Enforcement and Traffic Control expenses increased by 223.16%
• Fire and Rescue Services expenses increased by 322.66%
• Inspections expenses increased by 176.02%
• Overall increase for services 234.30%

Services:

• Maintenance of Highways, etc. expenses increased by 111.23%
• Sanitation and Waste Removal expenses increased by 200.67%
• Maintenance, Bldgs. and Grounds expenses increased by 42.08%
• Total Increase in expenses of 128.30
• Revenue from Local Charges for these services increased by 395.33%

Parks and Recreation:

• Expenses increased by 319.59%
• Revenues from local charges for services increased by 206.04%

Government Operation:

• Personal Services expenses increased by 202.32%
• Fringe Benefits expenses increased by 332.50%
• Contractural Services expenses increased by 287.43%

Gross Debt:

• Total Gross Debt of the town increased by 205.02%
• Other General Government debt increased by 221.49%
• Enterprise Activities debt increased by 181.36%
• Unfunded Debt has increased by 205.47%

Well, there are the numbers. Feel free to go to the APA site and check for yourselves. Do remember however, that these numbers do not include any of the 2010 fiscal year information where a more than $2 million deficit is hanging. Maybe there is something to be said for Mr. Lemley’s ‘pay as you go’ philosophy that didn’t stay around after he left.

The simple fact is that if the ‘goes out’ is higher than the ‘comes in’ things have to change. Keeping this 14 year pattern going in the same direction is only going to worsen the problem. Town Council needs to get involved in decisions involving expenditures and more aggressively monitor what is spent and where. The Town Council get routing reports from the Town Manager and absolutely nothing in this article should come as a surprise to any of them. After all, it only took me a couple of hours to get all the reports and set up multiple spreadsheets for analysis and I am not a high paid professional. In fact, I did it for free. Now, what will the Town Council do about the budget, expenses, and revenue?

Over the years, the Town Council has slowly (sometimes not so slowly) diverted almost all of its duties over to the Town Manager. We essentially have a ‘show’ council with the Town Manager making virtually all decisions, establishing contracts (i.e. the Aquatic Center), and choosing which laws and ordinance to enforce and when to enforce them (i.e., multiple violations of Erosion and Sediment Control on Town owned property as well as privately owned). The contract is established to maintain it this way, prohibiting the Council from taking back any of that responsibility. Nuff said by me. Please take the survey. It is short, quick and easy. Your input matters.

Town Manager Contract Survey

Radford and Christiansburg have very different contract issues for very different reasons.

Radford officials have at the front of their concerns list making sure that citizens are protected by insuring that the position of town attorney is being put out for bid and a new contract developed. An interesting aside to this is “who is writing the contract?” The rfp and contract do not, in any way, exclude the current town attorney from competing for, and winning said contract. It is a far and open process. Radford is simply joining the growing number of jurisdictions who are moving to a dedicated attorney.

Christiansburg, on the other hand, is involved with allowing the Town Manager to compile a contract for him that is in his best interest. The sample document used by the Town Manager is one that is provided at a website that focuses on the needs of those appointed officials, regardless of whether or not it is in the best interest of the Town.

While the contract itself has not become public knowledge, the sample contract used for the C’burg Town Manager contract is available online. Clearly, this is a document written to protect the Town Manager NOT the town. It will be interesting to see if the town attorney suggests modifications that support the interests the town or those of the Manager. It will also be interesting to see which of the ‘elected officials’ are supporting the town’s interest and which support the manager’s interest.

Given the Town of Christiansburg’s history of getting into contracts, discovering that mistakes were made, and then struggling to get out of those contracts (Tourism Development, Blacksburg Transit). It would be silly for them to enter into ANY contract that lasted for more than one year.

As to the Town Manager’s dedication to the citizens of the Town, all one needs to do is to read the original contract he set up with VT for the Aquatic Center, then read the one that was finalized after citizen uproar forced a re-evaluation. The version here shows the changes made in red. Please note that the Town Manger was essentially the only one working up this contract with the Town Attorney reviewing it. He was all but giving the Aquatic Center to VT.

So, in light of the compared progressive and regressive actions of the two jurisdictions, I have a survey that people can take to evaluate the performance of Mayor, Council, and Town Manager in 4 areas:

Your participation will be greatly appreciated.

During the last few minutes,  an event occurred which has not been seen in Christiansburg Council Chamber in decades (if not in forever). The Mayor rose from his seat and picked up a packet of manila envelopes. He told council members that he was passing this out and that it contained “Confidential Personnel Information” upon which he hoped Council could act at the next Town Council meeting.

Obviously, this had to be big news for it to be announced in such an unusual manner. (Usually, these things are just passed out to council without citizens having any knowledge.) Clearly, it was intended to make people aware that the information contained was confidential and they wanted the audience to be sure and understand that fact.

Unusual behavior always captures my interest. So, I found myself wondering what could be up? Was someone resigning or something? Was this the resignation of the Chief of the Rescue Squad that some had been expecting? I have been keeping track of bills affecting FOIA and could not think of anything that would have precipitated such a change. Guess my only other option would be to go to the LIS website, pull up the FOIA Codes and start reading again. Here is what I found:

• From: § 2.2-3705.1. Exclusions to application of chapter; exclusions of general application to public bodies. The following records are excluded from the provisions of this chapter but may be disclosed by the custodian in his discretion, except where such disclosure is prohibited by law:
  • 1. Personnel records containing information concerning identifiable individuals, except that access shall not be denied to the person who is the subject thereof. Any person who is the subject of any personnel record and who is 18 years of age or older may waive, in writing, the protections afforded by this subdivision. If the protections are so waived, the public body shall open such records for inspection and copying.
• § 2.2-3705.8. Limitation on record exclusions.
  • A. Neither any provision of this chapter nor any provision of Chapter 38 (§ 2.2-3800 et seq.) of this title shall be construed as denying public access to (i) contracts between a public body and its officers or employees, other than contracts settling public employee employment disputes held confidential as personnel records under § 2.2-3705.1; (ii) records of the position, job classification, official salary or rate of pay of, and records of the allowances or reimbursements for expenses paid to any officer, official or employee of a public body; or (iii) the compensation or benefits paid by any corporation organized by the Virginia Retirement System or its officers or employees.
  • The provisions of this subsection, however, shall not require public access to records of the official salaries or rates of pay of public employees whose annual rate of pay is $10,000 or less.
  • B. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as denying public access to the nonexempt portions of a report of a consultant hired by or at the request of a local public body or the mayor or chief executive or administrative officer of such public body if (i) the contents of such report have been distributed or disclosed to members of the local public body or (ii) the local public body has scheduled any action on a matter that is the subject of the consultant’s report.

As a quick aside, I see that my favorite section of the code still exists:)

• § 2.2-3707. Meetings to be public; notice of meetings; recordings; minutes.
  • H. Any person may photograph, film, record or otherwise reproduce any portion of a meeting required to be open. The public body conducting the meeting may adopt rules governing the placement and use of equipment necessary for broadcasting, photographing, filming or recording a meeting to prevent interference with the proceedings.

When “Confidential Information” is involved, one can reasonably expect a ‘closed meeting’ to be just around the corner for discussion (remember that no action can be taken during the ‘closed meeting’, just a discussion on the matter to be acted upon. Since the Mayor did note it was confidential personnel information, that narrows the scope of what would constitute such a meeting. This information can also be found in the FOIA. Here are those sections applicable to ‘personnel’:

• § 2.2-3711. Closed meetings authorized for certain limited purposes.
  • A. Public bodies may hold closed meetings only for the following purposes:
    • 1. 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.
    • 4. The protection of the privacy of individuals in personal matters not related to public business.
    • B. No resolution, ordinance, rule, contract, regulation or motion adopted, passed or agreed to in a closed meeting shall become effective unless the public body, following the meeting, reconvenes in open meeting and takes a vote of the membership on such resolution, ordinance, rule, contract, regulation, or motion that shall have its substance reasonably identified in the open meeting.
    • C. Public officers improperly selected due to the failure of the public body to comply with the other provisions of this section shall be de facto officers and, as such, their official actions are valid until they obtain notice of the legal defect in their election.

Given the above excerpts from FOIA (the full text is available at the Legislative Information System website), it would seem reasonable to assume that either someone is resigning or someone is being disciplined. However, in order to make reasonable assumptions, one must be operating within a ‘reasonable environment’. Since we’re dealing with the Christiansburg Town Council, where the ‘reasonable person’ test would be hard pressed to find a basis for comparison, who knows. Rumors are already running rampant with the most common two being the Rescue Chief or the Town Manager are resigning. Perhaps a FOIA request is in order so that if it is refused the actual statue involved would be noted. That would at least give people a general idea but no specifics.

Now, I am sure that all of you have probably seen more campaign information this year than ever before. What does this tell you? Well, obviously there are people who really, really want to win. Maybe they want to win badly enough to spend lots of someones money on ‘advertising’.

What it tells me is that there are those who are scared, for perhaps the first time, that the status quo will not be maintained. Or, maybe there is concern that if new eyes come into local government, things will become public that have not become public before. After all, Christiansburg only discovered the Freedom of Information Act about 3 years ago (although it has been around for about 40 years now).

Now, how are they treating their opponents. There are a lot of distortions and lies going around. Campaign signs have been stolen. All of that seems like a much harder way to prove you are the best candidate than simply showing what you have done.

How people run their campaign can also show you how they are likely to treat people who do not share their goals, values, or beliefs. Are they likely to discuss issues with you logically, offering the data to support their positions, or are they just going to stand in defiance and demand that they have their way?

Is raising or not raising taxes more important that irresponsible spending? Is making promises that are never fulfilled what you want in a candidate? Do you want leadership that takes credit for the work of others and places any blame squarely on anyone else they can find to blame?

Stop and listen to the candidates. Are they answering your questions or are they dodging them. During the candidate forums, I heard a lot of “mistakes were made” comments but I never once heard the comment “I made mistakes, but I have learned from them.” Of course, there is no evidence in the minutes of Planning Commission or Town Council to indicate that mistakes were acknowledged or that steps were taken to prevent those mistakes from happening again. In fact, the minutes show the same mistakes being made over and over again.

***another word from our sponsor FOIA*** If you were present at the Candidate Forum you heard Mayor Ballengee note that he did not know what urban sprawl meant. Well here are a few definitions for future use:

• an unplanned, disorganized growth of housing etc on the edge of a city
• Slang term for the growth of cities in an unplanned and often wasteful manner.
• the unplanned uncontrolled growth of urban areas into the surrounding countryside.
• The unplanned and often haphazard growth of an urban area throughout a larger geographic area.

The Town of Christiansburg, VA page at myvaresources.com has a LOT of documents and audio/video recording links where any citizen can take a look at what government has been doing in Christiansburg for the past decade. You will see from meeting minutes that budgets are discussed early in non-election years and late in election years. You will see a pattern of issues coming up before the election and then not being supported or addressed until time for the next election. In short, you will find all of the political games that you see at the State and National level, right here at your own doorstep.

As always, check out the information for yourself. Sometimes change is about going back to the way that things use to be, where elected officials represented all the citizens not just special interest groups.

You might also want to remember that the same Comprehensive Plan that set the stage for the Aquatic Center includes a goal of having a Civic Center. Is that what’s next on the agenda? Will it happen the same way, behind closed doors without citizens being informed?

Please take the time to do a bit of research on candidates before you cast you vote on May 4th at the Armory.

There was an area of F.O.I.A., which for me, seemed a bit gray until recent pokes and prods from individuals caused me to go back to look at the law and some of the interpretations of the law. (Investigation into the matter made the answers seem even more gray than before when answers arrived indicating that yes public meetings are public meetings except when their not public meetings, and it doesn’t matter if they are public meetings or not if the topics of discussion are not specific to a specific issue, yet it can be about the general aspects of an issue, except, of course, for those times when it isn’t:)

Okay, I’ll quit playing around and get to the issue …

What would happen if a group of citizens invited the local ‘body politic’ to attend a gathering and 3 or more of those officials attended? Does this, in and of itself constitute a public meeting? Perhaps the most salient discussion on this can be found in the form of a FOI Advisory Council Opinion (AO-15-04, July 19, 2004) found on the website of the Virginia Coalition for Open Government.

This opinion was written in response to a question by a citizen who also provided specific details of that meeting. Following a brief discussion of ‘Beck v. Shelton’ ( a court case where 3 members of the same council attended a citizen-organized meeting to discuss traffic and safety issues), the differences between these two events were noted. In the first instance, it was deemed a FOI violation had occurred because of the combination of the presence of 3 members of a Board in an environment where the topic concerned issues that were currently before that political group for decision. In the ‘Beck v. Shelton‘ case, although there were a sufficient number of elected officials present, the content of the discussion did not involve any issue currently before that group.

Simply take the time to read the Advisory Council Opinion above and see what you think. Personally, I think the law could be a bit clearer and a lot of misunderstandings would be corrected. Then there is always that other issue that comes into play when you are dealing with politicians….trust. If you know that several people attended a meeting but you were not there, can you trust them when they tell you that no business specific to the jurisdiction was discussed (by business I mean a topic directly related to issues that are being dealt with currently) and that it was informational only, or that all discussion was totally unrelated to the business of the jurisdiction.

In short, it seems that in a situation where the meeting was held to address a specific issue, it feel within the perview of FOI. Where the meeting is held as a general exchange of information with citizens or a group, this does not fall under FOI.

Perhaps most importantly, when the ‘waters of FOIA/FOI are murky’, consider taking the time to go to the Virginia Coalition for Open Government website and look at some of the opinions available there. If you don’t find an answer, the contact them with a question (you can do it directly at the website). One thing I learned real early in life, growing up in bayou country, if you can’t see the bottom of the pond/bayou/lake, take the time to check the depth with a pole before diving in head first!