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 4 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
or evaluating the performance of public employees. Meetings may be closed to discuss purchasing or selling real estate, or investing public funds, or discussing an industry’s plan to locate in the area.
The law also includes a possible loophole for real or threatened lawsuits. “Consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members or consultants pertaining to actual or probable litigation” can be a justification for closing a meeting, if open discussion might jeopardize the county’s legal position. However, a general worry that the county might be sued by somebody does not meet the law’s requirement, because “probable litigation” means litigation “specifically threatened” or expected soon from a “known party.”
At the September 6 meeting, Commonwealth’s Attorney Peter Luke suggested that the supervisors discuss sludge behind closed doors because he believed it was probable that litigation might occur. The board swiftly seized upon Luke’s suggestion, voting to deal with the issue in private. That got them off the hook of having to express their views and possibly make somebody mad.
Was the board justified in closing the meeting? I am not a lawyer, but I have read the law and I have my doubts. Only a court could decide. Luke acknowledged, in a telephone conversation this week, that he knows of no specific threat of a lawsuit against the county on the sludge issue. He said he based his recommendation to close the meeting on the fact that there have been lawsuits in Rappahannock and other
96.6%