Supervisors' actions show disrespect

A one-on-one call from a top state official. A late-night vote with no warning to the public. A surprise switch by a county leader.

Last week’s actions by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors were lawful. But they were disrespectful toward constituents and disdainful of best practices in public decision-making.

Two week ago, Chairman Rodney Thomas asked that the board direct its representatives on a regional planning group to remove language that prevents the state from allocating money for the proposed U.S. 29 Western Bypass. (Previous boards officially have been opposed to the bypass for nearly a decade.)

Mr. Thomas, who also is one of the county’s representatives to the Metropolitan Planning Organization, already had asked the MPO directly to remove the language, and had been rebuffed.

So he next asked the board to officially seek, via its membership on the MPO, a change in wording. The motion failed on a tie.

That vote came after the public had been given a chance to speak to the issue.

At the time, Supervisor Dennis Rooker, who voted against the motion, said about the change in language: “It’s already been brought up three or four times in the past year. The votes have never been there…, so you keep coming back with it. I guess at some point you’ll catch the public unaware.”

That’s exactly what happened — indeed, what was engineered to happen.

And that’s what disrespects constituents and the public process.

On June 8, Supervisor Lindsay G. Dorrier Jr., considered a swing vote, received a last-minute call from Secretary of Transportation Sean Connaughton assuring him that if the bypass language were removed, the project would receive full state funding.

At the board’s meeting that night, Mr. Dorrier then asked to rescind his earlier vote. Under Robert’s Rules of Order, a move to rescind is legal if made by a member who had voted against the original motion.  

But here’s where the supervisors’ actions get tricky.

The board already has a procedural rule in place saying that action items not on the agenda as approved at the beginning of a meeting should not be added at the end of a meeting for a vote. This procedure is specifically designed to protect the public from unexpected late-night votes on which constituents have no opportunity to comment.

 In order to take its unexpected, late-night vote on the bypass, the board had to not only rescind its earlier motion but also suspend its earlier rule.

That, too, is lawful. But the combination of maneuvers — coupled with a personal, persuasive phone call from a state cabinet member (who instigated that intervention?) — paints a picture of back-room manipulation.

This is not in the public’s best interest.

Whether the bypass is the best solution for the public or not, the manner in which this step was taken is contemptuous in the extreme.

The end-run around the public amounts to an act of contempt for the public, and for the highest and best practices of public leadership.

This is exactly the sort of maneuvering we abhor when it occurs in the halls of Congress. It is even more appalling when it occurs at such close range.

It thus joins a sad trend: Cynical and manipulative governance that creates a cynical constituency.