|
Adjourned Meeting
February 23, 2000
6:00 p.m.
Meeting Convened. An Adjourned Meeting of the York County Board of
Supervisors was called to order at 6:08 p.m., Wednesday, February 23,
2000, in the Board Room, York County Finance Building, by Vice Chairman
James S. Burgett.
Attendance. The following members of the Board of Supervisors were
present: Sheila S. Noll, Donald E. Wiggins, and James S. Burgett.
Walter C. Zaremba and Melanie L. Rapp were absent.
Also in attendance were Daniel M. Stuck, County Administrator; and
James E. Barnett, County Attorney.
WORK SESSION
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES
Mr. Jack Edwards, former Chairman of the James City County Board
of Supervisors, spoke to the Board about Parliamentary Procedures,
suggesting certain actions to facilitate the conduct of the Board's
meetings in a smooth manner. He stated that rather than talk about the
actual rules, he would like to talk about the process and then work some
of the rules into the process where needed. Mr. Edwards stated the
policy process involves:
· Input from the public · Professional recommendations from
staff · Good deliberations on the part of the Board
The system will not work unless all three ingredients are present,
and he stated the third part is the main point of discussion this
evening. The three parts should never be mixed up-nothing gets done when
everyone is involved or engaged in conversation at the same time. The
Board's deliberation process should consist of:
· One conversation in the room-no separate conversations going on
in the audience or by staff or Board. The Chairman needs to make sure
that this does not happen.
· The conversation needs to be public, accessible to everyone.
The person speaking needs to be at a microphone if necessary.
· The conversation the Board has needs to be rational, one that
isn't packed with emotion.
· The conversation needs to move effectively and expeditiously
toward a conclusion-long, drawn out conversation causes annoyance.
Miss Rapp arrived at 6:18 p.m.
Mr. Edwards indicated that in order to make the above work, the
following must take place:
· The Chairman must direct the conversational traffic-to some
extent the Chairman loses his or her right to do what he or she wants at
the time because they must be the traffic cop. No one should be allowed
to tie up the conversation or bog it down with things other than the
issue at hand.
· The Chairman must be supported-a Chairman who appears not to
have the support of the Board is viewed in a weakened position.
· The Board must be a group of people who respect each other's
rights-it doesn't mean there must be agreement. There cannot be private
conversations or interruptions when others are speaking. Each Board
member has a duty to help others participate. This is the critical
element.
Mr. Burgett asked Mr. Edwards to define what he meant by
"respect."
Mr. Edwards stated part of it is showing respect superficially as
a matter of courtesy. It is respect for others' rights to express their
opinions without having to tolerate negative body language from the
other members. In a positive way the individual Board members make an
investment in each other that pays off in their relationship as a board.
Miss Rapp stated she felt an important element of respect is
open-mindedness.
Mrs. Noll indicated an important element for her is having all the
facts on an issue and that information being shared with all the
members. She stated she sees respect as common courtesy.
Mr. Edwards then addressed the Board of Supervisors' Rules of
Procedure, which he stated in some instances is a much better
restatement of Robert's Rules. He explained that Robert's Rules are
intended for much larger organizations. Small groups can be afforded
more flexibility, where flexibility in larger groups could be chaotic.
He stated that Robert's Rules has a section on boards and committees
directed toward groups of fewer than 12. It provides more flexible
rules, such as a motion does not need to have a second; it permits some
discussion without a motion being on the floor; and the Chairman may
make motions and vote.
Chairman Zaremba arrived at 6:37 p.m.
Mr. Edwards stated what is needed is a group of people who
understand each other and respect each other so they do not need the
inflexibility of a lot of rules. He then explained the rule of unanimous
consent. He stated if unanimous consent is used judiciously, it works
well; but there must be a large amount of respect for each other.
Chairman Zaremba asked if unanimous consent was required or did
the Chairman have the authority to take procedural action without
unanimous consent.
Mr. Stuck indicated the Board's Rules of Procedure allow the
Chairman to take certain actions.
Chairman Zaremba noted that the wise Chairman would probably seek
unanimous consent.
Mr. Edwards indicated if the other members felt the Chairman took
independent action too frequently, problems may arise. He stated he
would seek unanimous consent; there shouldn't be a lot of objection as
long as the Board members feel they are being treated fairly.
Discussion followed on the double duty of the Chairman to keep
order within the meeting as well as hearing the issues being discussed
at the same time, at which time Mr. Edwards emphasized his position that
the Board members must support the Chairman in procedural matters.
Mr. Edwards also recommended that if things at a meeting were to
get out of hand, the call for a recess would be in order to give the
Board time to regroup. He then spoke of how once the Board has had an
opportunity to have several meetings together and learn to respect each
other, the actions will become automatic.
Chairman Zaremba stated after four years on the Board he was never
sure how much formality was appropriate for a public meeting, which is
one of the reasons he asked for this meeting.
Mr. Edwards stated he felt that as the public watches the Board
meetings, much of what they are interested in is "are these five
reasonable people who respect each other, and are they getting
along." Board members get in trouble when they don't appear to
respect each other. If respect is present in the deliberations, Board
members don't have to worry so much about the rules. Mr. Edwards then
addressed ways of each Board member being given the opportunity to speak
on a particular issue, and he indicated he did not personally like for
the Chair to call on each member for his or her opinion. He stated some
people like to hear all the conversations before speaking their mind;
some members might not have a comment on a particular issue and would
not want to appear uncaring or unknowledgeable by being called upon.
Chairman Zaremba asked how to make sure a member doesn't lose an
opportunity to speak.
Mr. Edwards stated the Chairman has to make sure things don't
happen so fast that adequate time is not given to an issue.
Discussion followed concerning the Board's policy of allowing only
York County residents, property owners, and business owners to speak
before the Board without the permission of the Chair, and it was Mr.
Edwards' opinion that because the time spent listening to non-residents
speak was so small, it was not worth the negative impact it could cause
to regional cooperation.
TELEVISING WORK SESSIONS
Mr. Stuck indicated the County currently televises the Board's two
regular meetings each month, but the work sessions are not televised.
The only localities known to televise their work sessions are James City
County and the City of Chesapeake. He asked Mr. Edwards to provide the
Board with his input concerning the success of televising the James City
County Board of Supervisors work sessions.
Mr. Edwards indicated he was a skeptic when James City first
started televising its work sessions, but he stated it did not affect
the Board as much as he thought it would. He stated he feels it is a
good idea, that some of the most interesting things accomplished by the
Board are done in work sessions.
Mr. Stuck noted that James City County Administrator Sandy Wanner
indicated they have a two-hour time limit for work sessions, and they
try to adhere to it.
Mr. Edwards stated that on occasion the Board went over the time
limit and occasionally they would consider an action item, but only when
absolutely necessary.
Mrs. Noll asked Mr. Edwards how the actions of the Board differed
at a work session from a Regular Meeting. She stated York work sessions
primarily were for the Board to listen and receive input from staff, and
the Board then discusses the issue. She stated she felt that talking to
a camera seems restrictive and makes for a more formal meeting.
Mr. Edwards noted his agreement that the Board needs to have work
sessions to learn about the issues, which is why he was against
considering action items in work sessions. He stated he didn't find the
television cameras to have any effect on the meeting, but it did help
educate the people in the community.
Discussion followed as to how often the James City County Board of
Supervisors met and the formality or informality of the meetings. A
brief discussion also ensued concerning the incapability of the cable
company to broadcast the meetings of the three historic triangle
jurisdictions so that they can be seen by all the residents.
Meeting Recessed. At 7:55 p.m. Chairman Zaremba declared a recess.
Meeting Reconvened. At 8:05 p.m. the meeting was reconvened in
open session by order of the Chair.
Mr. Stuck indicated a survey of 11 jurisdictions in Hampton Roads
was done concerning the televising of governing body meetings. All
except Norfolk broadcast their regular meetings. Only James City County
and Chesapeake have coverage of work sessions. There are three
jurisdictions which have occasional coverage of hot topics. Mr. Stuck
stated the East Room of York Hall is wired and cabled for the television
cameras. Two meetings could not be broadcast at one time; if meetings
were to take place in both the Board Room and the East Room at the same
time, only one could be broadcast live. The other would have to be taped
and shown later. He indicated the cost of equipping the East Room for
television broadcasts would be between $40,000 and $50,000. He stated
the staff time would be minor; only about $110 per meeting. Mr. Stuck
then addressed the timeframe in which the equipment could be
operational, indicating it would probably be August if the Board were to
make the decision to move forward tonight. He stated he had also talked
with the James City County Administrator, Sandy Wanner, regarding
concerns about the loss of informality and inhibitions on the part of
the Board members about having work sessions televised. Mr. Wanner
indicated he did not feel the James City County Board of Supervisors was
affected by it. Their work sessions last approximately two hours, from
4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., and they dress informally. He stated that Mr.
Wanner's comments mirrored those of Mr. Edwards.
Mrs. Noll suggested if televising in the East Room becomes
available that the Board not begin televising its work sessions until
September after the public is back from summer vacations.
Mr. Wiggins questioned why the Board didn't have its work sessions
in the Board Room.
Mrs. Noll indicated that a more informal setting allows for the
free exchange back and forth of conversation, and people are less
inhibited than when they are sitting in a row trying to carry on a
conversation.
Miss Rapp noted that the informality of the work sessions shows
the public that those meetings are different from the Regular Meetings.
The work sessions are primarily for the Board to learn about and discuss
the issues rather than making decisions on the issues.
Mr. Burgett indicated he liked the meetings being different from
each other. When the Board is in session behind the dais, the Board is
making policy and legislating. He also stated he concurred with setting
the East Room up for broadcasting.
Miss Rapp stated she felt it was a good idea to move in the
direction of televising work sessions. She also indicated she would
support setting a time limit for the meetings, stating she liked the
idea of a two-hour limit. Miss Rapp also stated she liked the idea of
scheduling one work session a month and the fact that the sessions being
televised allow the citizens the freedom of staying at home to watch.
By consensus the Board directed staff to proceed with the purchase
of necessary equipment for outfitting the East Room for television
broadcasts, such funding to come from the Contingency Reserve.
Mr. William Parker, Public Information Officer, reminded the Board
that its meetings are held during prime television time. He suggested
that if the Board wanted to keep its audience, it needed to pay
attention to keeping the topics on track and not dragging them out.
Mr. Burgett and Miss Rapp noted their agreement.
UPCOMING JOINT MEETING WITH THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(IDA) (Not on the Agenda)
Mr. Stuck asked the Board to indicate the topics of discussion it
wished to include on the agenda for the upcoming joint meeting with the
IDA.
Mrs. Noll indicated that after an introduction of the new Board
members to the members of the IDA she would like to talk about the
Board's goals with regard to the IDA and find out what the IDA's goals
are.
Mr. Wiggins stated he has some issues that he would pass on to Mr.
Stuck before the meeting. He stated he did not want the meeting to be a
dinner social.
Mrs. Noll stated the rest of the Board members would appreciate
Mr. Wiggins' sharing his ideas with them.
Miss Rapp asked that Mr. Wiggins email the Board members with his
topics.
Mr. Burgett stated he would like to discuss the importance the
Board has placed on economic development because they are coming up with
priorities, and it will take the Board to make the decision as to where
York County really wants to go.
Mr. Stuck indicated the Board had discussed during its retreat
earlier in the month the need to define balanced economic development.
He stated he had let Jim Noel know this would be one of the goals of the
April 15 retreat, and also told him he would find out what the Board was
after in terms of economic development. Mr. Stuck stated he also
suggested that Mr. Noel slow down the strategic planning committee so
that a plan is not developed that turns out to be contrary to what the
Board of Supervisors wants.
Chairman Zaremba indicated the agenda should include something on
the IDA budget request and give them a hint as to what is being
recommended for them. He stated he would also like an update on the
strategic study. He asked that staff contact the IDA to see what they
would like to discuss and put the topics together in a draft agenda.
MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS OF DISCUSSION (Not on Agenda)
Mr. Stuck advised the Board of the following:
Proposed Retreat with James City County: The James City County
Board of Supervisors is interested in having a breakfast meeting with
the York County Board, and he asked the Board members to provide Mrs.
Simmons with dates to avoid in April.
Taxation of Recreational Vehicles and Boats: Correspondence has
been received concerning tax rates for recreational vehicles and boats
in York County, and the Board has been provided with some information on
the correspondence along with a memorandum from the Commissioner of the
Revenue. The State Code allows the Board of Supervisors to set rates for
different types of personal property, and none of the rates can exceed
the general rate set for automobiles. When asked by Mr. Stuck how the
Board wished him to respond to the corresponding citizens, the Chairman
advised him to respond by indicating the current rates and policies
stand.
Fencing Dispute with Yorktown Property Owners Adjacent to York
Hall: The Board was provided with information concerning the dismantling
of a fence between the old jail and some adjacent houses because of the
construction of the new parking lot. He indicated staff had made a
decision to remove the old fence and replace it with heavy landscaping,
and three of the residents had petitioned the Board to replace the old
fence with a new one as was shown on the original plans. After
discussion regarding the County's change of plans from a fence to heavy
landscaping, the Board decided to table the matter until having an
opportunity to look at the property themselves.
Ground Rules for Conduct and Interaction: Distributed to the Board
were copies of a set of ground rules that were discussed at the Board's
retreat held February 4 and 5 which the staff was asked to draft. The
Board was asked to advise staff as to any further action they wished to
take on this matter.
CLOSED MEETING. At 9:00 p.m. Mr. Burgett moved that the Board
convene in Closed Meeting pursuant to Section 2.1-344(a)(1) of the Code
of Virginia regarding the performance of a County employee.
On roll call the vote was:
Yea: (5) Noll, Wiggins, Burgett, Rapp, Zaremba
Nay: (0)
Meeting Reconvened. At 9:21 p.m., the meeting was reconvened in
open session by order of the Chair.
Mrs. Noll moved the adoption of proposed Resolution SR-1 that
reads:
A RESOLUTION TO CERTIFY COMPLIANCE WITH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
ACT REGARDING MEETING IN CLOSED SESSION
WHEREAS, the York County Board of Supervisors has convened a
closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and
in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information
Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a
certification by the York County Board of Supervisors that such closed
meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the York County Board of
Supervisors this the 23rd day of February, 2000, hereby certifies that,
to the best of each member's knowledge, (1) only public business matters
lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were
discussed in the closed meeting to which this certification resolution
applies, and (2) only such public business matters as were identified in
the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed, or
considered by the York County Board of Supervisors.
On roll call the vote was:
Yea: (5) Wiggins, Burgett, Rapp, Noll, Zaremba
Nay: (0)
Meeting Adjourned. At 9:22 p.m. Chairman Zaremba declared the
meeting adjourned sine die.
_____________________________
________________________________
Daniel M. Stuck,
Clerk
Walter C. Zaremba, Chairman
York County Board of
Supervisors
York County Board of Supervisors
Back to Index
|
