Comments on: Echelon Partner Outlines Plans for Old School in Presentation at Palace Theater

By: Peter Lawrence

Peter Lawrence — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:43:21 +0000

Just got off the phone with Alan at the Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council. We discussed sections 2.2 3711 that I cited and section 2.2 3712 that the Wave hangs its hat on. Alan confirmed that listing the specific property when announcing a closed door meeting for the purpose of discussing a potential real property issue is not required as it would defeat the entire purpose for having that meeting (“where public discussion would adversely affect the negotiating strategy as described in § 2.2-3711(A)(3) of the Code of Virginia”). He did say, however, that announcements should say something more than just “real property acquisition” since that mirrors the general purpose language in the code. Alan said there are lots of ways The Town of Cape Charles could have added an additional phrase like “on the western side of Town” or “to discuss possible locations for a new municipal (i.e. library) site. Bottom line, the Wave got it wrong . . . no need to mention the Bank of America building. Feel free to go to the Advisory Council’s website, go to searchable advisory opinions, Dec. ’09 AO-13-09 or call them at 804-225-3056 and ask for Alan.

By: George Southern

George Southern — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 00:43:28 +0000

The only response I can think of to the above is to ask that you read again what I already wrote. But that of course would be pointless. As would asking our town clerk (who I think does a great job but who serves at the pleasure of Town Council) if she is following the law. In the Northern Virginia city where I lived most recently (Falls Church), the clerk is elected and so is not under the control of the City Council. There, the clerk makes sure to SPECIFY the subject matter of a closed session. An example of an appropriate closed session agenda item would be: “Real Estate Acquisition Opportunity — Bank of America building.”

I’ll close my part in this comment chain by quoting for the umpteenth time what the law states:

“A general reference to . . . the subject matter of the closed meeting shall not be sufficient to satisfy the requirements for holding a closed meeting.”

“Real Estate Acquisition Opportunity” is all we got for an agenda item. That is a “general reference” and does not satisfy the law for holding a closed meeting.

“Real Estate Acquisition Opportunity — Bank of America building” is a specific reference, and would have satisfied the law for holding a closed meeting.

By: Peter Lawrence

Peter Lawrence — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 20:31:26 +0000

Could you get it more wrong? The code section I referenced is specifically about Closed meetings(NOT OPEN AS YOU SUGGEST) and, strangely enough, immediately preceeds your section. See below:

prev | next

§ 2.2-3711. Closed meetings authorized for certain limited purposes.

A. Public bodies may hold closed meetings only for the following purposes:

1. Discussion, consideration, or interviews of prospective candidates for employment; assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining, or resignation of specific public officers, appointees, or employees of any public body; and evaluation of performance of departments or schools of public institutions of higher education where such evaluation will necessarily involve discussion of the performance of specific individuals. Any teacher shall be permitted to be present during a closed meeting in which there is a discussion or consideration of a disciplinary matter that involves the teacher and some student and the student involved in the matter is present, provided the teacher makes a written request to be present to the presiding officer of the appropriate board.

2. Discussion or consideration of admission or disciplinary matters or any other matters that would involve the disclosure of information contained in a scholastic record concerning any student of any Virginia public institution of higher education or any state school system. However, any such student, legal counsel and, if the student is a minor, the student’s parents or legal guardians shall be permitted to be present during the taking of testimony or presentation of evidence at a closed meeting, if such student, parents, or guardians so request in writing and such request is submitted to the presiding officer of the appropriate board.

3. Discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real property for a public purpose, or of the disposition of publicly held real property, where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body.

I stopped copying the sections after #3 since that’s the one referring to “real property”. The Town Clerk consults their attorney to make sure the Town is in compliance. Maybe you should do the same. I’ll ask again, did you consult with the Town Clerk for her input? If not, do your subscribers a favor and ask her for her thoughts.

By: George Southern

George Southern — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 17:56:29 +0000

In response to Peter and Marita’s comments above, here is the link to the Virgina code on requirements for closed door meetings:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+2.2-3712

Please see in particular section A:

“A general reference to . . . the subject matter of the closed meeting shall not be sufficient to satisfy the requirements for holding a closed meeting.”

As I have written before, my problem is not with closed meetings, but rather with keeping secret the subject of the closed meeting. The Town Council was within its rights to discuss and negotiate privately the particulars of selling the old school and buying the bank building. The Town Council was NOT within its rights to keep secret from the public the fact that those closed meetings concerned the old school and the bank building.

The reference cited above by Peter Lawrence refers to “discussion in an open meeting.” I never suggested that the meetings should have been open. I do maintain that under Virginia law, the SUBJECT MATTER of a closed meeting must be stated publicly. And, per section A above, a “general reference” to the subject matter is not sufficient. The subject must be specific, and in the case of real estate, that would mean naming the property to be discussed in closed session.

By: Marita Patterson

Marita Patterson — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 12:39:22 +0000

Thanks, Peter, for doing the research and giving us “the rest of the story”.

By: Peter Lawrence

Peter Lawrence — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:53:44 +0000

I appreciate your response however I’m not sure what section of the code to which you refer. Did you ever contact the Town Clerk for her input? I did..it was easy.Here is the actual section regarding the various reasons closed door meetings are allowed:

§ 2.2-3711. Closed meetings authorized for certain limited purposes(reason #3 regards aquisition of real estate).

Please note the reason stated for specifically not listing the actual property.

“3. Discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real property for a public purpose, or of the disposition of publicly held real property, where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body.”

The logic seems pretty well reasoned. Happy to learn about the section you are referring to.

By: Cape Charles Wave

Cape Charles Wave — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 21:56:27 +0000

GEORGE and DORIE RESPOND TO PETER LAWRENCE: Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Regarding the use of the word “secret,” please review the Virginia code, which we have quoted and cited in several articles. The meetings are not supposed to be “secret,” because although they are closed door, by law the Town must specifically state the subject being discussed. Cape Charles has long hidden behind the general phrase “Real Estate Acquisition Opportunity.” Virginia code states: “A general reference to . . . the subject matter of the closed meeting shall not be sufficient to satisfy the requirements for holding a closed meeting.” If the Town Council executive session stated that the agenda item was “Real Estate Acquisition Opportunity — Bank of America building,” THEN it would be a legitimate “closed door” meeting. Under current practice the meetings are “secret” and illegal.

By: Jean Johnson

Jean Johnson — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 20:22:03 +0000

To add to Mr. Kuzma’s point above, Cape Charles landlords will be competing with these 17 new properties that have significant cost advantages as a result of the significant government financial incentives this project will utilize. These include the 45% of renovations costs through federal and state rehabilitation credits; significant property tax and state income tax abatement; and the $41,000 the town is giving them from insurance proceeds. Moreover, loan rates are lower than when most current property owners purchased. Also, at the five-year mark, Echelon will be free to sell the properties, which is likely to be a more financially attractive option for them than being long-term landlords.

By: Mike Kuzma, Jr.

Mike Kuzma, Jr. — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 18:28:04 +0000

Question:
With the Project taking Federal and/or State money, if there is a rental deficiency whom will make up the loan payments if Echelon is not able to due to lack of operating cash flow? Is the Town on the hook?

Will there be requirements for the Project to accept Section 8 or HUD tenants if there is a rental shortfall?

The market is at best tenuous right now; won’t adding 17 units to the Cape Charles mix will do only one thing?……… locals who rent their places out now will have competition (Brand new stuff at that, far more attractive to short term renters), reducing your market and cutting into your incomes. Well, I sure hope all the local folks who have houses and mortgages to pay get theirs sold/rented first….

In regards to Mr. Creed’s question regarding asbestos, has a comprehensive asbestos abatement plan been submitted to the Town, as requested? In accordance with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants- Compliance Monitoring? Including lead as the building predates 1975? Frankly, until such a plan has been presented there is no reason to simply accept that “it will all be done according to Governement standards”….These are them(NESHAPs), let see the plan.

Now that the Building Supply is closed, where will you be purchasing all your materials for the construction?

One comment: Mr. McCormack indicated that ‘no short term rentals’ and speaks of a ‘friend’ who likes to fish the Eastern Shore…Hmm…….let’s see………he has about $825.00 a month carry costs for the apartment alone, plus dockage, plus gas, plus beer, plus bait, plus maintenance……how is this friend going to afford this? I’m pretty sure that Wallop’s has plenty of room up there for ‘corporate housing’……..

By: Peter Lawrence

Peter Lawrence — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 16:54:10 +0000

To George and Dorie, I think the Wave has potential but not if you continue to exhibit journalistic biases by using words like secret instead of closed door meetings. There’s nothing secret about them. As you well know, it is announced in advance that the meetings are being held but for reasons cited in Virginia’s code, they are “closed door”.

And Marita Patterson’s version of what Chris Bannon said is correct. Frank Wendell could have adressed the Echelon partner after everyone else spoke. He chose not to ask any questions. There’s no need to create an impression that there was an effort to silence him.

You, and the residents who read the Wave, will be well served by reporting just the facts. Thank you for your efforts to cover the news in Northampton County.