Supervisors led Central Virginia in minutes behind closed doors

The Amherst County Board of Supervisors routinely meet in closed sessions and did so more in 2009 than any other Central Virginia county or city, according to an examination of public meeting minutes by the News & Advance.

The board met 19 times or 79 percent of the time behind closed doors in two-dozen regular meetings last year. That figure does not include special meetings or work sessions.

By comparison, closed sessions were held by Campbell County supervisors 59 percent of the time, Lynchburg City Council 47 percent, Appomattox County supervisors 44 percent, Bedford City Council 43 percent and Bedford County supervisors 36 percent in 2009.

The question of when it is appropriate to meet in closed session was recently raised by Supervisor Claudia Tucker after the board voted 3-2 to terminate County Attorney Vaden Hunt in a March 2 meeting.

The vote was taken minutes after the board adjourned from closed session when no media or public was present.

Tucker said she worried that the situation was handled inappropriately, especially considering that the closed session item addressing Hunt was not initially on the agenda but added after the meeting had begun.

“I didn’t have any expectations that we would be addressing a personnel matter that day,” Tucker said of the move, which was added to the board’s meeting agenda just a few hours before the vote was taken. “I would start watching for incidents such as this — when we go into closed sessions and it’s not on the agenda. This certainly was not an emergency.”

Tucker said, barring matters of a criminal nature, she believed all board members should be notified beforehand on matters that require action.

Tucker and Supervisor Frank Campbell voted against Hunt’s termination and have recently drafted a resolution to reinstate him.

The resolution cites the public’s criticism of the move and the county’s need for “ethical and open” government as reasons why Hunt should be reinstated.

Although closed session items are routinely on the board’s meeting agenda and posted on the county’s website prior to the meeting, the law does not require advance notification.

Chairman Chris Adams defended the board’s decision about Hunt, saying he believed supervisors and the public should receive advance notification about agenda items, but there have been instances when it is not possible.

Adams cites the decision to terminate Hunt as one instance.

If a supervisor has a concern after an agenda is formalized, a closed session should be allowed, Adams said.

“We’ve tried to minimize the times that we go into spurt-of-the-moment closed sessions,” he said.

He also commented on the board’s high closed session percentage last year, saying that board has taken strides within the past few months to limit the times it enters into closed session.

Still, he added, certain items, especially when they regard a personnel member’s performance, need to be addressed behind closed doors.

“Because of their future, the affected parties requested to maintain the personnel information within closed session…it’s not done to hide things from the public. It was done in respect of people. I think the board has taken great strides in involving the public – and it will continue to do so.”

Experts in open-government law say closed sessions are legal and often necessary but should not become habit.

“Just because something can be discussed in closed session doesn’t mean it has to be,” said Megan Rhyne of the Virginia Coalition of Open Government. “There are those localities that tend to go into closed session wherever legally permissible, though they don’t need to.”

According to FOIA, officials can only take votes in open meetings and closed sessions are for certain limited purposes.

Examples include land acquisition where open talks may adversely affect bargaining positions, interviews with potential candidates for employment and talks regarding litigation.

Most of Amherst board members’ closed talks in the past year have centered on personnel matters and litigation, according to minutes of meetings.

A closed meeting on personnel matters held in 2009, which resulted in the resignation of former County Administrator Rodney Taylor, also drew considerable criticism from the public.

Adams said the decisions involving Hunt and Taylor were both “tough” but necessary ones.

“This specific issue was tough as well as the one last year,” Adams said.

“Every decision I make is not a personal decision,” Adams said. “Every decision I make is in the best interest of Amherst County.”

The closed session procedure is a privilege or tool for officials to use and should be properly handled to earn public trust, said Maria Everett, executive director of the Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council and an attorney.

Everett said exemptions under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) allowing closed sessions are mainly intended to protect the bargaining positions of governments that handle taxpayer money. Other states have similar rules.

“It’s really to protect the peoples’ interest in some cases,” Everett said.

Still, she added, public officials are not restricted from disclosing what was discussed.

“There’s nothing in the law that makes it confidential,” Everett said. “They’re not strictly prohibited (from talking) but that’s the point of the closed session, to not talk about it later with anyone else.”