Formal Meeting 2012 July 9 - Richmond City Council - Richmond, Virginia from Silver Persinger on Vimeo.

Very interesting meeting. I began recording about 35 minutes after the meeting began. The video begins with the Citizen Comment Period. Teddy Parham was the first speaker [0:17]. In an unprecedented move, President Kathy Graziano [4th District] called a 5 minute recess when Teddy would not stop talking even after they cut her mic. Scott Burger talked about the high charge of the minimum water rate in the City [21:53].

President Graziano tried to cut off Councilman Marty Jewell [15:02] which he did not appreciate. The two had another tussle when Mr. Jewell was asking clarifying questions of Scott Burger [28:15].

[30:18] Robert "Bob" Stiedel, Direct of Public Utilities, spoke to the Council about the Water Utility

[42:22] Amend and Continue, Item 6, Ord. 2012-103 -- the digital signal started breaking up while the clerk was reading the amendments. [45:10] Mr. Bruce Tyler noted he had a conflict of interest on the paper and would not participate in the vote or discussion.

 [46:15] Consent Agenda. Tyler abstain from Item 5, Ord. 2012-102, because of a Conflict of Interest [51:32].

[52:28] Expedited Resolutions. 2012-R100 and 2012-R101.

[55:07] Approval of Minutes

[56:00] Reports and Announcements. Many Council members lamented the loss of Council regular and active community member Ruby Turner.

Doug Conner [56:07]
Charles Samuels [58:34]
Chris Hilbert [1:00:14]
Marty Jewell [1:04:48]
Cynthia Newbille [1:08:02]
Reva Trammell [1:09:43]
Bruce Tyler [1:16:30]
Ellen Robertson [1:18:41]
[1:25:14] Additional comments from Tyler, Hilbert, and Trammell
Kathy Graziano [1:28:03]

[1:29:23] Introduction of New Papers Meeting End Time: 8:20 PM

[1:37:45] Comments from Dick Harmon

Public Support does not Affect Council Vote on Schools' Budget

Monday's meeting lasted over 5 hours. The main topic of discussion was the City's Budget. Citizens spoke for 80 minutes in opposition to the proposed budget which does not fully fund Richmond Public Schools.

Full house because of all of the awards being given out tonight, not because of a genuine interest in the adoption of the City Budget, though there were some people here for that too (see Parts 4 - 6, below). In Part 1, you can experience the Prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, an explanation of the Evacuation Instructions in case of an emergency, and a moment of silence in honor of Councilman Chris Hilbert's mother who passed away that day. All members were present with the exception of Mr. Hilbert.

Part 2 is the Awards Period.

A majority of the people spoke in support of fully funding the public schools. Speakers in Part 4 included Thad Williamson [2:00], Angela Dews [5:32], John Reed [9:15], Thomas Hartman [12:47], Lola Van McDowell [14:46], Dave Ballard [18:42], Kirsten Gray [22:17], and Barbara Haas [26:13].

Speakers in Part 6 included Shirley L. Harvey [0:16], Vivek Jain [2:54], Chris Dorsey [7:22], Teddy Parham [11:20], Benony Tony Amekudzi [15:05], Dr. Angela Renee Jones [19:43], David Napier spoke supportively of the Council's efforts [22:09], Jill Brown? [23:12], Donny "Dirt Woman" Corker provided comic relief [26:16], and Donald Hatcher [27:43].

A few comments of support for the City Budget from interested parties [0:17] followed by Council discussion [12:43] and then a quick vote on the C.I.P. [Capital Improvement Program] Budget [48:26].

Several speakers during the Citizen Comment period spoke in support of changing the law to allow residents to keep chickens in their yards. I spoke to encourage folks to run for elected offices. At the end of the comment period Charles Samuels [2nd District] said he was bring forward an ordinance for such a thing, Marty Jewell [5th District] said he wanted to be a co-patron on the paper.

One paper was amended and continued, Ord. 2012-79 pertaining to the Landmark Theatre. On the Consent Agenda, there were just few items, mostly small Council member expenditures which were approved, followed by Approval of Minutes [4:46] and Reports and Announcements from Council members: Doug Conner, 9th District [5:42], Charles Samuels, 2nd District [6:46], Bruce Tyler, 1st District [7:13], Reva Trammell, 8th District [7:51], Cynthia Newbille, 7th District [8:43], Marty Jewell, 5th District [10:07], Ellen Robertson, 6th District [12:56], Kathy Graziano, 4th District [15:42].

The Introduction of New Papers was the last order of business [18:13], I just filmed the beginning of it because after 5 hours I was ready to go.

Revealing Session with Richmond City Council - Fall Retreat '09

Richmond City Council Fall Retreat - October 5, 2009 from Silver Persinger.

Above,if there is only one two hour and twenty minute Richmond City Council meeting you watch this year, this is it.

Watch as the meeting opens briefly for 12 minutes before going into closed session as Councilman Bruce Tyler [1st District] lets it be know to his fellow Council members and the public via my video camera that he was not happy with the process for selecting the three members to the GRTC Board. Particularly since none of his three recommendations were even granted an interview. Councilman Doug Conner [9th District] explains why he withdrew Mr. Tyler's recommendations.

After the Closed Session, the meeting convened with the acceptance of the Land Use, Housing, & Transportation Committee's recommendations for appointees to the GRTC Transit Board.

The recommended appointees are Linda Broady-Myers and James Johnson, current members being reappointed to the Board, and Sheila Hill Christian -- formerly the City's Chief Administrative Officer under Mayor Doug Wilder before she quit, former transition aid to Mayor Dwight C. Jones, former director of the Virginia Lottery, former Executive Director of the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority [RRHA], former chief operating officer for the GRTC Transit System, and former Assistant City Manager under Calvin Jamison, former City Department Director, and former Chief of Staff for the City of Richmond.

The appointees were accepted by a vote of 5 to 3. Councilman Chris Hilbert [3rd District] was not present. Councilmen Tyler [1st District] and Charles Samuels [2nd District] and Ms. Reva Trammell [8th District] voted against the recommended Board appointees.

Watch as Council Chief of Staff Daisy Weaver loses Council members' attention. Watch as City Council members discuss abolishing the Open Citizen Comment Period at the beginning of meetings. Watch as they decide not to video tape their committee meetings (with the exception of President Kathy Graziano [4th District], and Councilmen Hilbert and Tyler). Watch as they discuss ways of increasing citizen participation and making City Hall more assessable.

All around a great meeting to watch to get a deeper understanding for the members of our beloved Richmond City Council.

* * Hi-Lights * *

Discussion of Doing Away with or Limiting Citizen Comment Period at the Opening of Committee Meetings


Discussion of Starting Committee Meetings Later to Encourage Citizen Attendence and Participation



Discussion of Video Recording Committee Meetings and Closed Captioning

Charter Review Commission to Hold Public Hearing Today

Today, Tuesday, September 1, 2009 6:30-8:30 p.m. the Charter Review Commission will hold a public forum to hear citizens' feedback on the recommendations proposed by the Commission.

The forum will be held in Richmond City Council Chambers, City Hall, 2nd floor, 900 E. Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia. The event is free and open to the public.

For more information, please call Daisy Weaver, Council Chief of Staff, at (804)646-5921, or daisy.weaver@richmondgov.com

For more information about the Commission, visit their website.


The Commission's recommendations for clarifying the roles of the City Council and Mayor are enumerated below:

Richmond City Charter Review Commission
Preliminary Recommendations – For Review and Comment
July 6, 2009


Process:

The Commission began its work by requesting the views of a broad constituency. We solicited input from present and past Mayors, Council Members, Heads of City Departments and a variety of others. We set up an online system for inputs from the general public. The Commission then elected to focus its efforts on the key issues highlighted by those sources and on the issues that had given rise to litigation between Mayor and Council.

Below are the current, preliminary recommendations of the Commission on those issues. We are sharing these recommendations with the Mayor, Council, their staff and heads of City Departments, and we will post them on the Commission website for public comment during July, August and September. We plan to offer further opportunities for comment during a public hearing to be scheduled in September. We expect to issue our final report and recommendations in October.

Recommendations:

1. Appointment and Removal of Council Staff

Current Status – Charter 5.02 grants the CAO power to appoint and remove employees in “administrative departments.” Section 5.03 grants the CAO “ultimate responsibility” for hiring and removal of “city personnel.” Some city employees (e.g. Council Chief of Staff’s office employees, Council Liaisons) arguably are not within “administrative departments.” The Charter does not explicitly address the power to hire and remove those employees. A dispute over this question led to a lawsuit in the previous administration.

Recommendation – Amend Charter section 4.02 to provide that Council may appoint employees to assist in its legislative, oversight and constituent relations functions, and that Council shall have the power to remove such employees. Amend section 5.03 to clarify that the CAO’s power relates to administrative personnel and does not extend to hiring/removal of “legislative” personnel appointed by Council.

Comment – This recommendation is consistent with Judge Margaret Spencer’s resolution of the previous lawsuit. It does present some drafting challenges in defining “legislative” and “administrative” personnel. The Commission is working with the City Attorney on appropriate language.

2. City Attorney

Current Status – Section 4.17 provides that the City Attorney shall be appointed by Council and shall serve at its pleasure.

Recommendation – Amend section 4.17 to provide that (a) the Mayor shall appoint the City Attorney subject to the advice and consent of a majority of Council; and (b) the appointment shall be for an indefinite term; and (c) the City Attorney may be removed from office by concurrence of the Mayor and a majority of Council.

Comment – The City Attorney serves as chief legal advisor to council, the mayor, CAO and all departments and agencies of the city. While all of those constituents rely on his advice, no single constituent is his “client.” Rather, the City Attorney represents the city itself as an entity, much like the general counsel of a corporation represents the corporation, not its individual officers and directors. In delicate matters regarding the respective powers of Council and the Mayor, the City Attorney must be free to exercise independent judgment and “call them as he sees them” when he offers legal advice. The current structure gives Council sole control over appointment and removal of the City Attorney. That appears to be a holdover from the Council-Manager form of government. The report accompanying the 1948 charter stated that the City Attorney’s “paramount duty is to advise the Council in its legislative and policy making functions” (p. 76). That no longer is the case, as a matter of structure or as a matter of daily practice.

The Commission believes that the City Attorney’s role as independent and neutral legal advisor to the City would best be served by a structure that provides Mayor and Council equal roles in appointment and removal of the City Attorney.

The term of office is a difficult issue. An indefinite term assures maximum independence. And it contributes to experienced judgment that comes from continuity in office. On the other hand, a fixed four-year term that coincides with the election of a new Mayor would give each new Mayor a say in appointing a City Attorney. But that practice could make the appointment more subject to political patronage. The Commission has not reached consensus on the term-of-office question. Currently, a majority favors an indefinite term while a minority view favors a longer and renewable fixed term (e.g. six or eight years).

3. City Auditor

Current Status – Section 4.18 provides that the City Auditor is appointed by Council for an indefinite term and Section 4.14 provides that Council may remove anyone appointed for an indefinite term.

Recommendation – Amend section 4.18 (a) to provide that the Mayor shall appoint the City Auditor subject to the advice and consent of a majority of Council; and (b) the appointment shall be for an indefinite term; and (c) the City Auditor may be removed from office by concurrence of the Mayor and a majority of Council.

Comment – Just like the City Attorney, the City Auditor serves the city as an entity and must exercise independent judgment. Just as with the City Attorney, the Commission feels the Auditor’s role as an independent and neutral investigator is best served by a structure that provides mayor and council equal roles in appointment and removal.

3A. City Assessor

The City Assessor currently is appointed by Council, but functions in many respects as a component of city administration. The Commission is considering whether the authority to appoint and remove the City Assessor should be modified in any respect. The Commission continues to study this question and does not yet have a recommendation.

4. Appointment of CAO/Acting CAO

A. Appointments

Current Status – Under 5.01.1, the Mayor appoints the CAO subject to advice and consent of a majority of Council, and the CAO serves at the Mayor’s pleasure. The Charter does not set time limits for the process or provide for any contingency where the Mayor and Council are unable to agree on a CAO.

Recommendation – Amend section 5.01.1 to: (a) Establish time limits for the Mayor’s designation of CAO and Council’s vote to accept/refuse the selection. (Our proposal calls for the Mayor to submit an appointment within 180 days of a vacancy and for Council to approve or reject within 30 days.); (b) Provide for a “second try” at the process with a fixed time limit (Our proposal calls for the Mayor to submit a second appointee within 30 days of rejection of the first and for Council to approve/reject within 30 days thereafter.); and (c) If there remains no agreement, submit the decision to a neutral body for selection. See Comment below regarding selection by neutral body.

Comment – The Commission sought a solution that would avoid extended periods without a CAO. Time limits should serve to move the process more expeditiously but, of course, Mayor and Council still may not agree on a candidate. Under that circumstance, the only way to avoid an indefinite vacancy would be to submit the choice to a neutral body. We also believe the prospect of decision by a neutral body would create an incentive for Mayor and Council to resolve disagreements.

Identifying the neutral body and establishing the format for selection pose difficult issues which the Commission is still considering. One proposal would provide for a petition to the Richmond Circuit Court, which would then make the appointment. The Virginia Code (section 24.2-228) provides for a similar practice in appointing interim members to fill vacancies on Council. Another proposal would be to create an independent panel of persons with experience in city government to make the selection. In either event, an additional question would be whether the court/panel would be empowered to choose a candidate from names provided by the Mayor, by Council, by both, or from other sources. The Commission continues to study these questions.

B. Acting CAO

Current Status -- In case of absence, incapacity or resignation of the CAO, section 5.07 provides that the Mayor shall appoint an acting CAO, subject to advice and consent of Council, from among the heads of departments.

Recommendation – Amend Chapter 5 to provide that the CAO shall designate a senior deputy CAO (SDCAO). Upon a vacancy in the office of CAO, the SDCAO would serve as Acting CAO until appointment of a CAO by Mayor and approval by Council. Include in Chapter 5 the requirement (in a new Section 5.02.1) that the SDCAO receive the advice and consent of Council.

Comment – The Commission acknowledges the importance of having continuity in the CAO/Acting CAO position with Council approval. Under this approach a CAO, while in office and in the normal course of business, would identify a person (SDCAO) who would fill the role of CAO in the event of a later vacancy. The SDCAO might be designated from among existing heads of departments or, if Council chose to create and fund an additional position, the SDCAO might hold that position and have additional duties. In either event, the SDCAO would be “pre-designated” before any vacancy occurred in the office of CAO. Hence, in the case of vacancy, the succession of SDCAO to the office of CAO would be automatic. Failure of Mayor and Council to agree on an Acting CAO would not result in a continuing vacancy in the position.

5. Sale/Lease of Real Property

Current Status -- The Charter authorizes “the City” to sell or lease land and buildings belonging to the City (section 2.03). The “default powers” section of the Charter (section 4.02) provides that all powers vested in the City shall be exercised by Council except as otherwise provided. No other provision in the Charter explicitly authorizes the sale or lease of city real estate. Hence, by “default,” it would appear that the power to sell or lease real estate currently rests with Council. In addition, the Constitution of Virginia requires a three-fourths vote of a city’s governing body (i.e. Council) in order to sell its “public places.”

The Charter does not explicitly identify a role for the Mayor in sale or lease of property. The veto provision in Charter section 5.05(d) gives the Mayor the power to veto any ordinance that imposes a duty on him, on the CAO, or on an administrative department. Arguably, an ordinance calling for the sale or lease of property would impose such duties, but that could be unclear under some circumstances.

Recommendation – Amend section 5.05(d) to clarify that the veto power extends to any sale or lease of real property, subject to Council override. (See below for a related recommendation on the veto power generally. If that recommendation is adopted, it would encompass this recommendation as well.)

Comment – The Virginia Constitution and the current Charter require approval of real estate transactions by Council. The Commission does not seek to change that (and no Charter amendment could trump the constitution in any event).

The Mayor’s veto power could add a useful balance, allowing the Mayor to disapprove of a transaction and at least require reconsideration by Council. Council, of course, would retain authority to override (and would be required to approve a sale by three-fourths vote in any event under the constitution).

We are concerned, however, that the scope of the veto power may be ambiguous. Section 5.05(d) creates a power to veto only those ordinances that “impose [a] duty” on the Mayor, CAO or department head. It is unclear whether that power would extend to some or all ordinances calling for sale or lease of real estate. The solution, we believe, is to amend the veto provision. The simplest amendment would explicitly extend veto power to any ordinance (see below).

6. Mayor’s Veto Power

Current Status – Section 5.05(d) grants the Mayor power to veto any ordinance that “impos[es] … duties” on him, the CAO or any department head.

Recommendation – Amend section 5.05(d) to provide that the Mayor has power to veto any ordinance, subject to the existing override power of Council.

Comment -- The breadth of the Mayor’s veto power is unclear under the Charter. Some ordinances may explicitly require the Mayor or CAO to perform some act and would clearly fall within the veto power. But other ordinances, while not explicitly requiring the Mayor, CAO or a department head to act, might still create some duty to act as a practical matter. (e.g. an ordinance banning Frisbees in public parks imposes no duty directly, but would require administrative action to enforce; an ordinance leasing real estate (see above) might implicitly require a City department to provide keys, remove furniture, etc.). The Commission believes the veto power needs greater clarity. A general veto power applicable to any ordinance would be clear, unambiguous and would be consistent with the balance of legislative and executive power in most American jurisdictions.

7. Budget Process

A. Budget Adoption

Current Status – Chapter 6 of the Charter prescribes a procedure and a time sequence under which the Mayor proposes a budget, Council adopts or amends it, the Mayor may veto items, and Council may override vetoes.

Recommendation -- The Commission believes the budget adoption procedures are sufficiently clear and does not recommend any amendments.

B. Budget Amendments or Fund Transfers after Adoption

Current Status – Under Section 6.16, after a budget is adopted for the fiscal year, any budget changes or transfers from one department to another must be initiated by the Mayor and approved by six votes of Council.

Recommendation – The Commission believes the current Charter is sufficiently clear and does not recommend any amendment.

8. Investigations/Inspector General

Current Status – Under section 4.16(a), the Council has power to investigate matters pertaining to any department, agency or officer of the City. Similarly, under section 4.16(b) the Mayor, CAO, City Auditor, and heads of departments and commissions all have power to investigate matters relating to the performance of their duties. Section 4.16(c) provides power to subpoena records and witnesses in connection with any investigation. The Commission was asked to consider a variety of issues, including whether investigative power should be more limited or whether a separate office of Inspector General should be created.

Recommendations -- The Commission believes the current Charter is clear, reasonably balanced and provides self-limiting mechanisms that could serve to curb abuses of investigative power. The legislative branch and executive branch have independent and equal powers. While investigative power is spread widely across departments, the Mayor and CAO are in a position to prevent abuses through their authority to appoint and remove department heads. The Commission is not aware of any history of substantial abuse of investigative power and does not recommend a change.

As noted in part 2 above, the Commission believes that an independent City Auditor serves a crucial investigative function. The Commission’s recommend- ation regarding appointment and removal of the Auditor is designed to strengthen that function.

9. Boards and Commissions

In the course of addressing issues relating to the appointment and removal of City officers, the Commission noted an additional issue relating to the appointment of members of boards and commissions. A variety of commissions and boards play important roles in the operation of city government. Many have a direct impact on the functions of city departments that are otherwise under operational control of the CAO. As a general rule, either under the Charter or pursuant to ordinance, most of those commissioners and board members are appointed by Council. In many instances the Mayor has no direct role in such appointments. In its final report, the Charter Review Commission may call for a review of the appointment and removal authority for city boards and commissions with a view toward considering the appropriate balance between Council and Mayor in making appointments.

10. Dispute Resolution

The Commission was asked to consider Charter amendments that might provide a mechanism, short of a lawsuit, for resolving potential future disagreements over the relative powers of Mayor and Council. We continue to pursue that question. Our tentative conclusion is that mandatory dispute resolution processes, written into a Charter, may be impractical. Nevertheless, in our final report we hope to include some recommendations for voluntary steps that may help guide future efforts to resolve disputes.

MEMBERS of THE COMMISSION

The Richmond City Charter Review Commission consists of nine members, who either live or work in Richmond; four of which appointed by Richmond City Council, four appointed by Mayor L. Douglas Wilder and a member selected by the original eight members of the Commission from outside the group to serve as chairman. Members of the 2008-2009 Richmond City Charter Review Commission include:

1. Chairman, John G. Douglass, Esq. - Selected by Richmond City Charter Review Commission Members, November 10, 2008

2. Ms. Jeannie Baliles - Appointed by Mayor Wilder

3. Mr. Orran L. Brown, Esq. - Appointed by Richmond City Council

4. Ms. Jacqueline G. Epps, Esq. - Appointed by Mayor Wilder

5. Dr. Robert Holsworth - Appointed by Mayor Wilder

6. The Honorable Benjamin Lambert III - Appointed by Mayor Wilder

7. Mr. Frederick Marsh, Esq. - Appointed by Richmond City Council

8. Dr. John Moeser - Appointed by Richmond City Council

9. Mr. John Thompson, Esq. - Appointed by Richmond City Council

Electric Guard Dog Fence Company Wants to Electrocute You - July 20, 2009

Richmond City Council's Public Safety Committee met on Monday July 20, 2009 at the Richmond Police Academy. The meeting began at 5:03 PM.

Above, the meeting opened with comments from five individuals. Normally there may be one or two, many times there are none. Jim Szilagyi, owner of Plaza Bowl [ one of the few remaining and original Duck Pin Bowling Alleys] spoke to the committee about recently being cited by CAPS for code violations and stated there was no clear path for his business to comply with or an established process to address issues and still stay in business. A man representing the bowlers at Plaza Bowl also spoke in support of the city working to assist Plaza Bowl.

[17:30] Council regular and concerned citizen, Linda Herman spoke on three items, 1) Tree Maintenance / Danger of falling tree limbs 2) Mopeds and Bicycles not following the Rules of the Road and 3) Cars blocking the intersection of Broad and Belvedere during morning and evening rush hour traffic.

[26:30] William Andrews, self described resident of the 8th District and Lieutenant for the Richmond Fire Department, presented a proposal to the Committee to require bicyclists to be licensed. He also complained about bicyclist not following the Rules of the Road.

[31:00] Then I spoke. I agreed with Ms. Herman's concern about the intersection of Belvedere and Broad and suggested they post "Don't Block the Box - $250 Fine" signs. I expressed my opposition to Mr. Andrews' suggestion that bicyclists should be licensed but I agreed that there ought to be more awareness raised regarding better bicycle behavior. The #1 complaint I hear is bicyclists riding the wrong way on a one way street.

I also presented a petition to the Committee which had been signed by 29 individuals requesting the Council to adopt an ordinance lowering the fine for not having lights on your bicycle from $100 to $15. I also read several comments from individuals who had signed the petition.

Above, Irvin Carter, Budget Manager at the Sheriff's Office discussed the program where inmates are charged a dollar a day. Mr. Carter reported it cost $47 a day to keep an inmate or as the Sheriff's office prefers to call them, "residents." [ See ] He also said between April 17 and

[16:30] Next, Chris Beschler, Deputy CAO of Operations gave a thorough report to the Committee describing the timeline and plan for construction of the new City Jail.

Above, it wasn't listed as a presentation to the Committee on the Agenda, but Cindy Vaughn from Electric Guard Dog Company [Columbia, South Carolina] made a presentation about her company's electric fence. The presentation was related to the committee's discussion and review of Ordinace 2009-143 , which would allow electric fences, currently all electric fences are prohibited within the City's limits.

A number of business men were there to speak in support of the electric fence.

Dick Menendez, Chief Operations Officer of Richmond Auto Auction. [1:17:30]

Bill Stratton of Stratton Metals on Brooke Road reported he had installed the fence in mid-2005. [1:25:40]

Kenneth Treat, Terminal Manager for Old Dominion Trucking. [1:29:40]

And an individual representing Wayne Bombard Trucking. [1:31:50]

I spoke in opposition to the ordinance. [1:32:45]

Amending the Downtown Master Plan - Villains and Heros

Above, footage from Monday night's Council meeting held on July 13, 2009 includes the complete discussion of the proposed amendments to Richmond's Downtown Master Plan. This is as exciting as it gets for a City Council meeting. Enjoy it.

The clip opens with Brooke Hardin from the Department of Community Development describing the proposed changes, followed by comments from the public. Council discussion began with Councilman Marty Jewell (5th District) immediately seconding the request made by the attorney for Echo Harbor to strike language they did not like. Mr. Jewell's reckless motion was seconded by the Reva Tramell (8th District) and supported by Bruce Tyler (1st District) and Doug Conner (9th District).

Charles Samuels (2nd District) was the hero of the evening -- delivery a worthy speech at a crucial moment. The final vote was 4 - 4. The motion failed, thankfully.

The final Public Hearing on the Amendments to the Downtown Master Plan will be held on Monday July 27, 2009.

The First Two Hours of this Almost Four and a Half Hour Meeting



This unedited portion of video includes the meeting prayer, Pledge of Allegiance, Roll Call, Amendments to the Agenda, the Awards Period [at 9:00, which is broken out and detailed below]. At 37:20, Council President Graziano introduced Peter H. Chapman, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer [CAO] for Economic and Community Development, he didn't say much.

Highlights:

Citizen Comment Period begins at 38:30
Approval of Minutes [56:30]
Standing Committee Reports and Announcement from Council Members [57:30]
Review of Items on Consent Agenda [1:16:30]
Citizen Comment on the Consent Agenda [1:21:30]


the Consent Agenda,

Marty Jewell's Comments



Above, Councilman Marty Jewell argued for striking the language from the Downtown Master Plan as requested by the attorney from Echo Harbor and offered a motion to that effect. Councilwoman Reva Trammell seconded the motion. Bruce Tyler and Doug Conner also voted to support the motion. However, the motion failed on a vote of 4 to 4.

What the Echo Harbor Attorney Said and What a Couple of People Said



Above, comments from USP Echo Harbor, LLC attorney Jim Theobald to Richmond City Council during the public hearing on proposed amendments to the Downtown Master Plan. His comments are followed by comments from Thad Williamson and Eugenia Anderson Ellis, both citizens of Richmond, Virginia.

Awards Period



Above, many awards on this night.

Council President Kathy Graziano (4th District) and new CAO Byron C. Marshall presented an Official Joint Proclamation, officially declaring July 2009 as Richmond Public Park, Recreation and Community Facilities Month. J. R. Pope, director of the Department, accepted the award on behalf of the employees of the department, many of whom were in the audience.

Councilwoman Ellen Robertson (6th District) presented an Official Welcome to the 2009 Richmond Microscopy & Microanalysis Conference that will be held at the Richmond Convention Center July 26 - 30, 2009. The welcome was received by Carolyn Marks and Edwina "Winnie" Westbrook [the wife of John Westbrook, Ellen Robertson's Legislative Assistant], two of the four organizers of the Conference. A free event, open to the public, will be held on June 29 at 8:30 AM entitled "Microscopy in the Classroom."

Councilwoman Reva Trammell presented a Community Service award to the Mr. Yong Hak Lee and Mrs. Keum Ho Lee, owners of the Satellite Restaurant and Lounge / Crab House for their willingness to host community meetings at their restaurant [such as the one last week organized by Councilwoman Trammell for business owners to discuss the recent robbery and shooting and other recent crime on the Southside].

Councilman Charles Samuels presented an Official Recognition to the Braille Circulation Library founded in 1925. The recognition was received by Rev. Brian J. Barton, Sr., Executive Director and Board Members, Melody Lindsey and Maurice Bray.

Councilman Samuels also presented an Official Recognition to WDYL (Y101) celebrating their 10th Anniversary and their service to the Richmond-Metro area.

Organizational Development June 1, 2009 - Censorship & Closed Door Dealmaking

Above, complete video of Richmond City Council's June 1, 2009 Organizational Development Committee meeting.

The first minute of this video is a compilation of clips from the 10 minutes I was waiting for the meeting to begin. It is one of my constant criticisms that Council does a crummy job starting their meetings on time. However, if they were good about starting their meetings on time, my complaint would change and I'd ask them to start the meetings 5 minutes after the hour to allow additional time for citizens to arrive without missing any of the meeting.

The first topic discussed, Dr. Tyrone Jackson, Director of Human Resources, asked the Committee to waive a requirement that jobs must be advertised in the newspaper. Dr. Jackson was requesting this for seven positions that are currently staffed but are proposed to be done away with. The seven employees will have "first crack" at 200 vacancies the city is planning to fill.

...

At the end of the meeting the committee went into Closed Session to discuss Ordinance 2009-105 which proposes to extend the option to sell 3101 East Main Street, Intermediate Terminal Building No. 3, and adjacent land fronting East Main Street, at 4303 and 4319 East Main Street to "Restauranteur, Inc." which is registered with the State Corporation Commission. The registered agent since August 15, 2003 is William F. Etherington, and the previous registered agent was D. H. EURE beginning in August 25, 2001. The registered address is 701 E. Franklin Street Suite 1200 which is the offices of Beale, Davidson, Etherington & Morris, PC.

The ordinance seeks to grant the purchaser 7 additional months in which to buy the property for $725,000. View the original ordinance, Ord. 2004-133-156. According to this ordinance [2004], the purchaser was supposed to build a restaurant on the property. The purchaser paid a deposit of $25,000 once the ordinance was adopted and had 5 years to complete the purchase, which was supposed to include $57,000 from meals taxes paid by purchaser on sales above $2 million in the first 12 months of operation of proposed restaurant. Doesn't this financing scheme sound similar to the plan to pay for Shockoe Center?



Shocking Revelations on President Graziano's Leadership Style

Censorship or what?

In the clip above, Angela Montgomery, a policy analyst in Council's Legislative Services Department, read a prepared report regarding the May 18 Public Safety Committee meeting.

In Ms. Montgomery's report there was no reference to the 50-65 motorcycle club members who came out to register their opposition to a recent modification in the Code of Virginia that prevents establishments that serve alcohol from serving patrons who are wearing gang colors or insignia. Ms. Reva Trammell objected to the omission and it turns out President Graziano request that portion of the report be omitted in order to save time. Both Ms. Trammell and Mr. Marty Jewell stated they resented the action.

This is not the first time Mrs. Graziano has taken liberties with "shortening" a meeting. In fact this is the fourth time I am aware of shenanigans like this. Most recently at the second Council meeting in February '09, she insisted that the public comment period be shortened to 15 minutes [from the normal 30 minutes] for each side regarding two ordinances dealing with the Commission of Architectural Review [CAR], Oakwood Heights, and a fence in front of Jennie Dotts' house near Chimborazo Park. There were many citizens to speak in opposition to the Oakwood Heights development who did have an opportunity to speak.

The first time I recall Mrs. Graziano doing something similar was in February 2008, when she was chairperson of the Land Use Committee. Mr. Hilbert and Mr. Jewell had co-patroned a resolution, Resolution 2008-R13, to express the City of Richmond's opposition to Dominion Power's proposal to build a new coal fired power plant in Wise County, in Southwestern Virginia. At this committee meeting there were many environmental activists and Mrs. Graziano said when they considered this resolution that each side would have 15 minutes to comment. She requested the environmentalists speaking in support of the resolution each take only two minutes. Meanwhile, the only opposition to the resolution was a lawyer representing Dominion Power and he was allowed to speak for the entire 15 minutes. It's not fair, and it is a clear sign that Mrs. Graziano does not hold the citizen comment period in high regard.

The citizen comment period is the public's most effective tool for holding elected officials accountable and allows citizens to contribute to the political discussion, though comments are often disregarded by the Council.

This Week's Council Meeting, May 26, 2009

Opening Formalities

Above, the Richmond City Council May 26, 2009 meeting included an opening prayer delivered by John Westbrook [of Morning Star Baptist Church and Councilwoman Ellen Robertson's legislative assistant], the pledge of allegiance, roll call [all members were present], the fire evacuation plan, the appointments of Neville C. Johnson and Anita Randolph as members to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Oversight Board, and amendments to the agenda.



Awards and Presentations

Above, two awards were presented at this meeting. One award was presented to Richmond Public Schools' 2009 Graduating Class Valedictorians [Charmesa Cousins (Armstrong HS), Sheltia Strickland (Franklin Military Academy), Gina Gabriel (George Wythe HS), Marshé Minor (Huguenot HS), Dakeisha Bowman (John Marshall HS), Michelle Lewis (Richmond Community HS), Juan Wilson (Open High), Lamont Banks (Thomas Jefferson HS)]; another award was given to Richmond Public Schools' 2009 Mind Games Team Winners from Westover Hills Elementary School and Fisher Elementary School.



Citizen Commment Period

Theodora Parham commented on poor service of GRTC Care Vans and drug dealing neighbors. [0:30]

Ted Moody urged funding Recreation Workers for city youths. [4:15]

Keery Keenan and Todd Schall-Vess urged City Council's support for Friends of Dogwood Dell Arts Program. [6:45]

Allender Griffin opined the Echo Harbor development and baseball in Shockoe Bottom. [10:50]

Pamela Bohannon requested financial assistance to send her daughter on a trip to Japan to take part in the People to People Student Ambassadors Program. [14:40]

Jackie Kothe questioned the Council regarding legality of panhandling at the I-95 South Exit onto Cary Street. [18:00]



The Donald Hatcher Incident

Above, Council regular Donald Hatcher expressed his views on the 26 separate ordinances that constitute the City of Richmond's budget. However, after 3 minutes had expired, he wasn't done talking and challenged the limitation.

What followed was a tense standoff between President Graziano, Mr. Hatcher, an officer from the Richmond Police Department and Councilman Marty Jewell stepping in with a motion to allow Mr. Hatcher additional time to speak. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Reva Trammell. The vote was 3 [Jewell, Trammell, Tyler] to 5 [Graziano, Robertson, Hilbert, Samuels, Conner] with one abstention [Betty Squire].


Up until last year, citizens had the right to comment up to 3 minutes per ordinance or resolution. In an effort to curtail citizen participation (including my own), Council amended their Rules of Procedure [on Feb. 11, 2008, with Resolution 2008-R18-27, See page 11; Ms. Trammell and Mr. Jewell were the only Council members to vote against the change] and enacted an even more rigid standard where citizens are given only 3 minutes to comment on the Consent Agenda [which is commonly made up of 10 - 40 separate items] and papers that are called together [ie. bundling papers to limit opportunities for citizen comments]. Under the old rules, a citizen could spend his entire allotted 10 minutes speaking to the Consent Agenda alone.



My Comments

As usual, I hadn't planned to speak so much but found I had much to say. I spoke in opposition yet one more time to the use of inmate labor as currently proposed in the Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] Budget [Ord. 2009-50] under a line item entitled "Environmental Code Enforcement" managed by the Dept. of Community Development, the Richmond Sheriff's Office, private contractors HDL Services LLC and F.U.N. Construction and budgeted at $260,000.

I also spoke in opposition to continued support for Venture Richmond [Ord. 2009-97], a group that markets the city and operates the "Clean & Safe" program, operates the canal boats, and maintains the Canal Walk and Brown's Island, and is funded by a $1.7 million special assessment fee on properties located in the downtown and river front special services districts, in addition to a $700,000 contribution from the city; in opposition to the way the budget was prepared with almost no input from the public; in opposition to 8 papers that were being expedited in order to expend Council District Funds before those funds reverted to the General Fund.

Hi-Lights from the March 23, 2009 Meeting -- My comments

I spoke to the City Council on various topics that were discussed on the evening of March 23, 2009. First I spoke in opposition to the appointment of Thomas A. Silvestri, Publisher and President of The Richmond Times-Dispatch, to the Richmond Metropolitan Convention and Visitors Bureau on the grounds that it would pose a conflict between objective reporting and supporting the goals of the Visitors Bureau, it represents a continuation of the "good ol' boy network," and the Bureau needs a more gender-balanced board -- currently only 5 of 21 members are women -- and Mr. Silvestri was appointed to replace a woman who had resigned, Nicole G. Hood.

I also spoke against the naming of an alley "Herbert Hamlet Alley" because the current process gives developers too much power to assign alley names rather than having a process where the public has a role in determining the naming of a public right of way. I also included the comments from the applicant for the alley name, Jane Allman from Monument Construction.

And finally I pointed out the Fiscal Year 2009 Budget which they were adopting (finally, after former Mayor Wilder declared the Council's adopted budget invalid) did not include $5750 for the Virginia Cooperative Extension, which the City previously had to restore to a recent annual budget.