The Charlottesville City Council has tabled a proposal to make it a misdemeanor to camp on public property after a series of speakers expressed outrage at the idea. The ordinance and accompanying protocol were developed after private talks this spring and summer between City Councilors and Charlottesville Police Chief Michael Kochis. The public first learned about the idea when the agenda for the September 2 meeting was published. The draft ordinance was the last item on the meeting, Charlottesville Police Chief Michael Kochis began his presentation by stating that the idea for the ordinance came out of closed-door discussions with Councilors held on April 3. So-called “two two one” meetings are when Councilors are briefed on potential items without a quorum being formed, meaning the public has no way of knowing what was discussed. No minutes are required. The executive director of the Virginia Coalition for Open Government said “two two one” meetings are legal but problematic. “The public feels excluded because everything has been worked out ahead of time and they are given a done-deal,” said Megan Rhyne in an email.
Former Prince William Board of County Supervisors Chair Ann Wheeler says she has no regrets over pushing the historic PW Digital Gateway data center project toward a vote in December 2023, even in light of the now-lengthy legal battle that will determine the project’s future. Wheeler told InsideNoVa via text message she did not see substantial risk in initiating the public hearing despite a direct warning from County Attorney Michelle Robl. “The issue with public notice was public knowledge at the time and discussed openly,” Wheeler told InsideNoVa. “As has been reported, the county attorney indicated the applicants wished to proceed. My understanding was that we made a good faith effort to advertise as evidenced by the emails and the series of events and from that standpoint it allowed us to proceed.” Robl’s note read, “If the board proceeds with the December 12 public hearings on these rezoning applications and the board’s action on the application is challenged, there will likely be a legal argument that the legally required advertisement requirements were not met, and thus the board’s action would be invalid.” The memo goes on to state the Digital Gateway developers said they were willing to accept the legal risk involved.
An increase in requests and a lack of resources are a common refrain from agencies when they’re asked about long wait times for FOIA documents. But, even when those things are true, they can mask agency official’s desire to slowroll a request, something Connecticut’s FOI law makes possible because it only requires an agency to respond to a request “promptly” and adjudicating this requires a trip to the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC), which is a significant time commitment and not always feasible for all requesters. It becomes obvious that slowrolling is happening when, after months of inaction, officials suddenly produce documents following a threat to file a complaint with the FOIC. DECD has done this with at least one of Inside Investigator’s FOIA requests, producing documents a year after the request was filed and within days of being a deadline by which an FOIC complaint would be filed if they didn’t respond. And they’re certainly not the only agency to do so.
