On The Front Lines
Rutherford Institute Calls on Charlottesville, Albemarle Officials to Cease Secret Meetings in Violation of Public's and Media's Right to Know
CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. -- The Rutherford Institute has denounced secret meetings being held by members of the governing bodies of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, asserting that such meetings are contrary to the First Amendment and violate Virginia's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In a letter to members of the City Council and County Board of Supervisors, constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead makes clear that the closed-door meetings undermine core values enshrined in the First Amendment by violating the people's constitutional rights to express themselves, to assemble and to petition government, as well as the media's right to freedom of press and information.
The Institute's letter is available here.
"Unfortunately for the residents of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, the decision by the City Council and the County Board of Supervisors to hold closed, secret meetings on matters of public interest jeopardizes the very system of government that they, our elected representatives serving on these esteemed bodies, were charged with upholding," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "Frankly, this state of affairs is unacceptable, especially for a community that prides itself on its Jeffersonian connections, and must be remedied immediately. Those who drafted the Constitution never contemplated, nor would they have tolerated, a secretive government. The people of Charlottesville and Albemarle County are equally intolerant of such secrecy in our government bodies."
The closed meetings reportedly stem from disputes that have arisen between Albemarle County and Charlottesville over revenue sharing, school funding and other matters. Fearing that media coverage of these disputes has made it difficult to reach a resolution of the conflicts, Council and Board members have conducted meetings in secret to discuss these matters. The meetings have been held with two or fewer members of each public body present in an effort to avoid the requirement of an open and public meeting imposed by Virginia's FOIA.
However, as Whitehead points out, this not only violates the spirit and principles of the Constitution, but the very letter of FOIA. Indeed, an official opinion issued in 1990 by Attorney General Mary Sue Terry points out that having only two members of each council and board at a meeting does not make FOIA inapplicable. The letter also criticizes city and county officials for intentionally closing the limited participation format for these meetings for the express purpose of preventing public scrutiny and press coverage of the public business being discussed. "Instead of devising ways to avoid public exposure of these discussions," Whitehead writes, "board and council members should embrace the ideals embodied in fundamental, constitutional principles of an informed electorate and maximum transparency of government."
Press Contact
,
