James City County’s Board of Supervisors will continue to have non-recorded closed sessions after a Thursday discussion revealed four of the five board members would not support recording them.
In November, Stonehouse Supervisor Jim Kennedy brought forward the idea of taping closed sessions after his concerns over a July meeting. The board entered a closed session in July to discuss former County Administrator Robert Middaugh’s performance, but Kennedy said the board discussed policy behind closed doors, which is not allowed. In August, the board discussed their opinions about what happened in the meeting, but made no policy decision at the time.
At Thursday’s meeting, Berkeley Supervisor Mary Jones said taping closed sessions was suggested as a way to verify whether something was said in closed session that should not have been.
County Attorney Leo Rogers said if the board voted to enact a recording policy, closed sessions would be recorded by default, but the board could vote not to record a particular session prior to entering it. All recordings would be kept on a tape recorder that would remain in Rogers’ office and would not available to the public, even through Freedom of Information Act requests. The recordings could be released in two ways: a court order mandating their release or a majority vote from the Board of Supervisors allowing a particular recording to be heard.
Jones said she understood the intent of taping closed sessions, but there are closed sessions for a reason — land acquisitions and personnel matters, for example.
Jamestown Supervisor Kevin Onizuk said his concern with recording closed sessions would be confidentiality, which Rogers said was also a concern. The board meets in a room wired to broadcast and record meetings, but having the meetings recorded with the cameras would require additional county employees to be involved in the process. The proposal for recording meetings would have had Rogers using a handheld sound recording device.
Because the board can take a vote to change any decision, Roberts Supervisor John McGlennon asked if a vote could be taken to release a particular recording. Rogers confirmed a vote by three or more board members could release a recording.
Onizuk said he did not want to see a personnel discussion made public because that could subject the county to legal liability. Jones said there is no need for a recording if the board is operating in the true meaning of a closed session, as a recording could end up being used as a “gotcha tool.”
Powhatan Supervisor Michael Hipple said he wondered if the recorder might limit discussion because board members would be worried the recording would be made public through a board vote. While he appreciates information is made public, Hipple said there are things the board needs to talk about behind closed doors.
After Hipple, Onizuk, Jones and McGlennon each spoke, Onizuk asked Kennedy’s opinion.
“You know what, I’ve heard you speak. That’s fine, pull it. That’s my thought. I’m fine with that,” Kennedy said. “Before we go far on these things and waste staff time, if there’s no interest, declare there’s no interest. And that would be the thing that I would say, is that this was a colossal waste of time. I thought there was interest in this; it came up throughout the fall. There’s no interest. Let’s not jump through hoops.”
Jones, Hipple and Onizuk defended their positions. Hipple and Onizuk said recording closed sessions made sense to them until McGlennon brought to light the possibility of releasing recordings.
Jones asked Rogers if the policy could be written in a way to keep the recordings private unless under a court order.
Rogers said the board can set and change rules, so a new board majority could change the policy.
“If there was an intent to get the recording out, it could be done,” he said.
Rogers also informed the board the current proposal offered a general policy change regarding closed sessions. Even without that change, the board can vote — prior to the session — to tape particular closed sessions.