Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 2 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
or use of real property for public purpose, or of the disposition of publicly held property” is an allowable purpose for closed meeting. However, since the public property in this instance belongs to the Federal government and since the Rappahannock Supervisors have no say-so in its dispersal, the qualification hardly seems to apply. In fact, the Park Service considered the Supervisors so un involved in the proposed land trade that they weren’t even notified of the transaction. Only the county Planning Commission received advance warning of the deal.
Section 2.1-344 also states that executive sessions may be held for “consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members, consultants or attorneys, pertaining to actual or potential litigation, or other legal matters within the jurisdiction of the public body.” The land trade doesn’t fall under the control of the Rappahannock Supervisors. In addition, there was no legal counsel, consultant, attorney or staff member present for the executive session.
It’s not what the Supervisors did that’s disturbing. It’s how they did it. After four years of behind-the-scenes negotiations, it’s about time that somebody held a public hearing on the land exchange. But why talk about a hearing behind closed doors? And why didn’t the Board publicly acknowledge receipt of a petition carrying close to one hundred names from families that have lived in Rappahannock for generations?
Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act promises government in the sunshine of public scrutiny. Now that light has been thrown on the proposed land swap, it’s not in the peoples' best interest for the Rappahannock Supervisors to tum the switch back off.
83.0%