State agency says board meeting was improper JILL PALERMO
North Virginia Media Services
Prince William County Board of Supervisors Chairman Corey Stewart is standing by his decision to retreat into closed session in June to talk about raising board members’ salaries, despite a state agency’s opinion that the discussion was improper under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. Stewart, R-At Large, declined to comment on the opinion, which was released Aug. 6 by the Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council, a state agency charged with guiding public officials about the law. According to Kevin McNulty, Stewart’s aide, Stewart maintains the board did nothing illegal or unethical by following Acting County Attorney Michelle Robl’s advice that supervisors’ salaries are permissible for closed-session discussion under an exemption that allows boards to discuss personnel matters in private. But the FOIA Advisory Council’s opinion, signed by Executive Director Maria J.K. Everett, said the board’s June 16 closed-session salary discussion was “devoid of personnel considerations” because the board discussed salary increases generally, not specific employees or individual board members. Therefore, she wrote, it is “not a proper topic for a closed meeting under the personnel exemption” of the state’s Freedom of Information Act.
As the legal basis for her opinion, Everett cited a 1982 Virginia Attorney General’s opinion about a Fairfax County School Board’s closed session discussion about an administrative change that led to the elimination of a deputy superintendent’s position. In that instance, the Fairfax board was correct to discuss the topic in private, the opinion said, because the matter affected a specific employee. The opinion, issued by then-Attorney General Gerald Baliles, goes on to explain that more general policy discussions “devoid of personnel considerations” are not covered by the personnel exemption of the FOIA law. And that’s where Everett found what she called “an informative analogy” for Prince William supervisors’ salary discussion. “In this instance, as you have described it, the Board met to discuss salary increases generally that would not take effect until after the next election, not to discuss individual members of the Board,” Everett wrote. The state FOIA Advisory Council considered the matter at the request of Prince William Today and InsideNoVa. com, which first reported the closed meeting June 18. The opinion was based on information in two articles that detailed objections to the discussion from supervisors Pete Candland and Jeanine Lawson, who walked out of the meeting in protest.
The articles also included comments from Stewart, Supervisor Frank Principi, D-Woodbridge, and Supervisor Mike May, R-Occoquan. None disputed that the closed session was held to discuss the salary-increase proposal. In an email, Robl said she also disagrees with the FOIA Advisory Council’s opinion. “My advice to the board is confidential and therefore I cannot get into the specifics,” Robl wrote. “However, I will say, in my opinion, the board’s actions with regard to closed session on personnel matters were legal, and I disagree with the recent advisory opinion.” The proposal at the center of the board’s discussion would have raised supervisors’ annual salaries from $43,422 to $53,795 and the chairman’s salary from $49,452 to $58,032, increases of 24 percent and 17 percent, respectively. At the time, Stewart said the board did not vote on the pay hikes because supervisors could not reach a consensus. Under state law, supervisors cannot raise their own salaries but during an election year can raise salaries for members who will take office the next January. All board seats are up for election in November. Candland said he was pleased that the FOIA Advisory Council formally weighed in on the board’s discussion. “Now it’s been validated that not only was [the discussion] inappropriate
Deserves the Best
morally but it was also inappropriate in the eyes of some legally,” Candland said. “Boards have to be reminded … that closed sessions are not just to be used carte blanche,” he added. “You have to have very specific, defined reasons of why you want to go into closed session, and to me, talking about our pay increases is not justifiable for going to closed session.” In an emailed statement, Lawson said she was not surprised by the ruling. “Discussions regarding sitting elected officials’ compensation should always be held in public,” she wrote. The Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council is a state-funded agency charged by law to “provide opinions about the application and interpretation of Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act,” according to its website. The council has no authority to enforce the law, but issues advisory opinions on matters relating to the law. Everett’s opinion about the Prince William County Supervisors is the first that directly addresses whether it is appropriate for an elected body to discuss members’ pay in closed session. The opinion will be added to the agency’s online library, where it can be accessed by the public and other elected boards for future reference. Jill Palermo can be reached at info@ staffordcountysun.com.
When baby isn’t quite ready to go home, we have the Stafford region’s only Level II Nursery to keep her close by. While here, be assured of the best care thanks to Stafford Hospital’s partnership with the specialists of Children’s National. Learn more at MyBaby.mwhc.com.
MyBaby.mwhc.com
STAFFORD COUNTY SUN • www.insidenova.com/news/stafford/ • Friday, August 14, 2015
BABY Because Your
SCS
3