This week's Union Star brings to light the fact that the council may have been having some illegal closed sessions. This isn't the first time this has happened in this town's history, but it probably is the first time a council member stepped up and said that it needed to be fixed. I'm surprised that any council would take the position that a local attorney has more say than the Attorney General. But I'm not surprised that THIS council would take that position. After all they listened to a local attorney and ended up paying off an employee that sued the town.
I agree that a council should not be acting as a disciplinary committee for employees. This is just poor management. Why doesn't Brookneal have a human resources or employee liaison? Instead most of the employees have to go to the very people, that are making them miserable, for help.
I went to the Virginia FOIA website to see if I could find what the council member was talking about and found this: http://dls.state.va.us/foiacouncil.htm and this http://dls.state.va.us/groups/foiacouncil/ops/03/AO_17_03.htm
Quote:
This element of control did not exist between the city council and the employees hired by the city manager; therefore, the city council could not go into closed session to discuss individuals with whom it did not have an employer/employee relationship. This opinion was reiterated two years later, when the Attorney General opined that the phrase "employees of any public body" could not be narrowly construed to be synonymous with the phrase "employees of any locality."2 End Quote
Looks like she is correct in that a council is not supposed to go into closed session regarding regular employees.
So this makes me wonder WHY any council that was given the above information would still insist that it is okay to break the law, just because they want to. I also have to wonder why Mr. Jennings, Mr. Jean and Mr. Shepperd, who I had previously given credit for having brains, would go along with illegal and improper meetings? Are they making a public declaration that they are going to participate in more illegal closed sessions?
Looks like the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Illegal Meetings?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I've been out of town and now have the flu, so I haven't been checking in on this blog.
The newspaper story was correct, but failed to mention that some council members also made statements to the effect that "we don't have to follow FOIA, they lose court cases all the time"
FOIA also wins court cases and we cannot afford any lawsuits. I'd hate to think the town would go against the Attorney General's ruling.
I think this issue is very important. We owe our community as much transparency as possible, and we owe our employees fairness and equal treatment.
And while I did vote for the policy manual, upon recommendation of our town attorney, I also expressed a lot of concern about several issues within it. I think it needs some serious revision.
Tracy M.
I haven't posted before, but after reading this weeks paper I have to comment: There is no doubt in my head that the officer was being run on a rail. Our "acting as a town manager" seems to have a problem with certain employees and uses his position to get rid of them.
the council has been reprimanded before for illegal closed sessions and this mayor seems to be agreeable with this problem. If this had happened in Richmond or Lynchburg the press would be all over it.
I have met most of the town employees and with a few exceptions they seem like good people. It's a shame they have no where to turn when they get harrassed or have problems on the job.
Tony F
After reading the front page of the blog I went to read the newspaper's article on their website and couldn't find it. I ended up calling a friend in Phenix and having them read me the article.
There is no doubt that the council had an illegal closed session.
For any attorney to recommend they have such a session, within the parameters that the article outlined, shows that they do not understand civil law.
For a council member to try to excuse it because of ignorance is absurb. He is right that ignorance is no excuse, but in employee cases ignorance is cause for large settlements.
Any court would side with the officer if this was brought up. If they don't have all the documentation for the suspension, such as complaints and other concrete evidence, he could build a good case against them. And good cases end up costing the employer a lot of money.
I find myself both interested in the case, yet troubled that it is obviously happening to a real person.
Will you be posting up dates? I'd like to know how this ends.
I'll keeping it updated. The officer's trial is this week and once it is over the town will have some explaining to do.
I'm wondering if there will be any more budget meetings or if they are going to try to cram one down our throats like last time.
Post a Comment