Sidewalks and zoning processes, and FOIA. Oh my.
Although Christiansburg leaders were previously caught with their "hands in the cookie jar" as regards compliance to simple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) laws -- and were sent back to school for some special tutoring in June 2008 -- some officials seem to continue to struggle with this subject.
Back then the Mayor stated Christiansburg leaders "never intentionally, deliberately or blatantly defied FOIA laws," stressing that citizens should "trust town administration."
How does honoring the "letter and intent" of FOIA play out in practice here in Christiansburg?
Example: When three of five council members present at the Feb. 2nd meeting indicated support for residential sidewalks and approving proposals only when usable green space requirements moved closer to 10% of overall land area in new developments -- that "majority" was immediately derailed.
These items were referred to an appointed Planning Commission (PC) for review, with a response due back to Council within 90 days. Alternatively, Council could have asked for a legal opinion based upon Town Code as presently written, clarifying what flexibility and authority is already provided. Or a motion and second could have been put forth, signaling the majority's intentions as regards what they would like to see in future zoning, rezoning and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requests.
Instead, these items appeared on the Feb. 22 PC agenda, and that's where FOIA steps back into the picture.
Individuals who were formerly appointed to the PC and now serve on Town Council in an elected capacity just don't seem to have had enough, and routinely attend PC meetings. Occasionally, the Mayor has also popped in. During these meetings, they or other citizens in attendance are sometimes allowed to comment.
Council "organizes" each September, making annual appointments to various committees and boards. Councilwoman Ann Carter is specifically assigned to act as Council's liaison to the PC, and has done so for several years.
Is it possible certain Council members don't trust their own peer? Alternatively, is there an issue with communication between these two bodies? Are agenda items commonly so complex they require more data than what is being provided before an up-or-down Council vote? Or is this indicative of some type of influence that could circumvent the process?
When the PC is meeting to discuss issues which come before them as a public body and more than two Council members are present (including the appointed liaison) -- even if they are only there to simply observe -- these become de facto meetings of Town Council. In these situations, were citizens informed? Were all Council members notified? If not, a FOIA violation has occurred, according to the Virginia Coalition for Open Government.
Before the PC makes a recommendation, before Council actually entertains a motion and votes on these requests -- a Joint Public Hearing is scheduled. The intention of these hearings is to provide an opportunity for all details to be fully discussed by both bodies, in public.
If the PC has already met and discussed an issue (regardless of whether elected officials were present or not), summaries of discussions, information provided by the applicant at that time or subsequently received by staff, any issues and concerns which may have been voiced -- little if any of this is communicated publicly during the joint hearings.
Copies of materials being provided to Council before or after these hearings are not available to citizens. These documents should detail what information or assumptions were made relative to traffic or school enrollment impacts, community cohesiveness or other elements that provide an overall vision of how a proposed project might fit into and enhance our community.
Instead, the Mayor rattles off the tax parcel number and type of request being made by an applicant, then asks if anyone present wants to address Council -- rather than the hearing serving as a forum to educate the public with an exchange of information between the two public bodies.
Council now generally defers taking immediate action on these matters until their next regular meeting, providing a minimal two week period to digest input or obtain responses to specific questions. Often, certain concerns may later be addressed or details firmed up -- yet citizens don't have much opportunity to comment again in response to these changes, or gain an understanding of what or why something appeared or disappeared.
The Mayor is correct: Citizens should be able to trust Council and town administrators. When the process is not transparent, yet may give an appearance of possible preference, influence or circumvention of each elected official's intentions -- trust becomes something more scarce than raw, developable land in Christiansburg.