The Cavalier Daily
Serving the University Community Since 1890

​Proposed City Council procedure changes draw criticism

Local attorney says provisions possibly unconstitutional

After a lengthy debate Monday night, Charlottesville City Council deferred a decision on a set of new Council procedures and guidelines of operation.

The proposed changes were developed at Council’s August retreat, and aimed to address concerns Councilmembers have heard from the public, Councilwoman Kathy Galvin said.

Galvin said she was surprised by Councilmembers' hesitation.

“That was a puzzling turn of events,” Galvin said. “None of these reservations were expressed during the retreat.”

One of the most debated proposals concerned Council communications and how Council handles correspondence with Charlottesville citizens.

“Individual Councilors will not purport to speak for Council unless it is a decision on which the Council has taken a position,” the proposal read. “Councilors will avoid making promises regarding what Council or staff members will do to respond to issues and concerns.”

The proposal also stipulates that Council will coordinate with the city manager if there is a concern for a citizen or employee and refrain from handling the matter alone.

Jeffrey Fogel, a Charlottesville civil rights attorney, wrote an open letter to Council yesterday calling this provision into question, saying that forcing Councilmembers to share their citizen correspondence with the mayor will inhibit effective communication in the Charlottesville community.

“As a citizen, I have the right to communicate with my elected officials in private without those communications being reported to other authorities, and Councilmembers, as well, have the right to communicate with their constituents without their responses being monitored,” Fogel wrote. “The proposed policy will inhibit citizens from communicating with councilors and inhibit councilors from being open and honest in their communications with constituents. Because of that, citizens will also be inhibited from wanting to serve as Councilors.”

Fogel also said in his letter that some of the provisions under the agenda and meeting management proposals could be unconstitutional if implemented — citing the language which advises Councilmembers to "support the decision and avoid undermining the decision or attempting to undo it through subsequent actions" once a proposal has been approved.

“This is an outrageous idea and it is shocking that it was even proposed, no less under serious consideration,” he wrote. “There is no need to explore the ramifications of such a policy as its literal words should condemn it. It clearly would violate the United States Constitution were it not for the fact that it is unenforceable.”

Galvin said the proposal was designed to promote teamwork among the Councilmembers instead of competition. She said that some of the contentious points of the proposal were designed to make meetings run more smoothly so that they do not go late into the evening.

“It clearly was a document that was meant to help us conduct business in an efficient, cohesive manner,” Galvin said. “Ultimately, we Councilmembers, any human being, make a better decision when we are not exhausted.”

Galvin said that staff is now working on revising the language of the proposal. She said it may take some time before the proposal is ultimately approved, with the agenda for the early November City Council meeting largely full.

“People have come up to me in the public and said, ‘It really looks at times that you on Council are not working together,’” Galvin said. “I thought that was something to take seriously.”

Comments

Latest Podcast

The University’s Associate Vice Provost for Enrollment and Undergraduate Admission, Greg Roberts, provides listeners with an insight into how the University conducts admissions and the legal subtleties regarding the possible end to the consideration of legacy status.



https://open.spotify.com/episode/02ZWcF1RlqBj7CXLfA49xt