TRI In The News

Rutherford Condemns City-County Closed-Door Meetings

From The Daily Progress
Original article by Brandon Shulleeta available here.

The Rutherford Institute is blasting closed meetings between Albemarle and Charlottesville elected officials as a violation of "the people's constitutional rights."

For months, elected officials and government staff members have met behind closed doors, discussing ways to share services and reach an agreement on a financial dispute. The Rutherford Institute, an Albemarle County free-speech group, believes those discussions lack transparency.

"The only way you get transparency is no secret deals, no closed meetings," said the institute's founder and president, John W. Whitehead. "They're not a rock group. They don't need to go out and practice [before they] come out and sing."

City and county officials have been discussing ways to save money through collaboration, including sharing fire and rescue services and social services. They've also discussed a revenue sharing agreement between the two localities and are considering using about $2.6 million in state funding, which both governments claim ownership of, for a service that would benefit both school divisions.

To avoid violating Freedom of Information Act requirements for meetings, the county executive and city manager appointed no more than two members from each of the localities' school boards, as well as the City Council and Board of Supervisors.

Some elected officials have contended that prohibiting the public from the meetings would allow for more frank conversations and help prevent politicians from posturing for the press.

A letter sent by the Rutherford Institute to members of the City Council and Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, signed by Whitehead, states: "Secrecy will serve only to intensify public distrust of elected officials and further erode the constitutional rights of citizens to participate in their government."

"If those running the government aren't open and accountable, they become a law unto themselves and it quickly becomes a lawless government," the letter states.

In response to the letter, Albemarle Supervisor Dennis S. Rooker said: "I agree with a lot of the public policy arguments that John makes about why open government is important, but there are also reasons for exceptions."

Rooker also disagrees with the institute's claim that the meetings were "secret" meetings, noting that though they were not advertised, officials have been open with the public about the topics being discussed at the meetings, as well as the dates and times of the meetings. He added that no votes can be taken at the closed meetings, and the issues will be raised in future public meetings.

Whitehead said that regardless of whether the meetings are called "closed" or "secret," the public is left in the dark about the specifics of the conversations between the two localities.

"If they're discussing things in private, they're secret, whether they call them that way or not," Whitehead said, adding that despite the issues being discussed later in public, residents aren't getting the full story because the groundwork is being laid behind closed doors.

"We don't want planned meetings. We want to see them as they are," Whitehead said. "We don't want them parsing words and deciding: We're all going to go out and say the same thing."

Some officials, however, contend that the meetings are closed because open meetings might be less productive and lead to conversations that aren't as frank.