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 3 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
The ugly topic of sewage
sludge was on the agenda for the public meeting of the Rappahannock County Board of Supervisors that met on September 6. Several citizens including this writer attended that meeting to hear how our elected officials felt about the prospect of having sludge spread on county land, and what they might do to regulate it.
The ugly outcome of the day was that th^ Bo^rd of Supervisors decided against discussing their <dews on sludge in public, and against allowing the public at that meeting to express their views on the topic. Instead, they voted to take up the issue in closed session—after the public was dismissed— and in that session they decided not only to abandon the county’s ban on sludge, but also to take no action on a draft ordinance to regulate sludge that had been sitting before them for nearly five years.
It was a swift and unexpected about-face in county policy, decided behind closed doors. The public was denied a chance to hear what individual supervisors may think on the subject, and denied any input in their considerations. This is not democratic government in action. This is a throwback to the old way— where the “good ole boys” met in the back room without any
nosy voters hai^flfe around, to make decisionP&nd announce the outcome later.
Virginia has a “open meetings” law designed to deter local governments from behaving this way. That law requires elected bodies such as county boards to meet, deliberate and make decisions in public, unless one of a few very specific exemptions from open meetings are met.
Under the law, public bodies may hold closed meetings only for a few specific purposes. These include some personnel matters, such as interviewing job candidates, considering disciplinary actions,
94.3%