2000-01-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

286 Mr. Cox said he has presented a proposal to Council, as they have been talking about interviews for the Board of Architectural Review, about a more open process. Mr. Cox said that in 1998 interviews for the Circuit Court judge were open to the public, and he participated and learned a lot from the process. Mr. Cox said that in the spirit of open government, he would like to invite the general public to observe interviews and certain groups to attend. Mr. Cox said it could be done in an informal, small setting, with the public silently sitting,along the sides of the rooms. Questions from the public could be taken, on index cards, and Council could decide if they want to pose them to the candidates. Following this, Council would go into closed session and make the final decision. Mr. Cox said he thinks this needs to be tested and see if it has implications for other boards. Ms. Daugherty said she has a lot of concerns about the idea. Mr. Daugherty said interviewing volunteers for board vacancies is quite different from having interview panels for judges or other professional City employees. Ms. Daugherty said she has concerns about the burden on volunteers and Council and about the logistics. Mr, Cox said it would be no different than what -we do now, and the field of candidates could be narrowed before interviewing. Mr. Cox said that anyone who serves on a board needs to be able to articulate their views in public. Mr. Cox said he has spoken to applicants and they thought it would be wonderful to be able to express their views. Mr. Cox said somehow Council is going to have to open up the process. Mr. Caravati said he sees both positive and negative in the proposal, but he has not thought through all of the issues. Mr. Caravati said he has questions, such as what are the criteria for cutting candidates, and would that be public. Mr. Caravati said the proposal is something he may be willing to try, but it needs more thought. Mr. Caravati said it would be very time consuming for the public. Ms. Richards said she has not completely made up her mind. Ms. Richards said the provision for education of the public is important and hearing their views and support of candidates. Ms. Richards said she would like to get feedback from the public, but she does not see provision for any subsequent input from the public after the interviews. Ms. Richards said she is very concerned about fhe intimidation of volunteers from the community who are not accustomed to that public process, and is concerned it may eliminate very good candidates. Ms. Richards said she would support adopting a different model, submitting written questions to candidates, distributing the answers to the pfft~lic, and then getting feedback fi.om groups and individuals. Ms. Richards said she feels that would be less intimidating. Mr. Cox said he thinks having the public there can be very reassuring to candidates. Mr. Cox said he looks at this as an opportunity, and he is interested in exploring it in the context of the BAR. Mr. Cox asked that Council not close the door on the proposal. Mr. Cox said that he has a personal interest in one item to be discussed in closed session and he is disclosing that he will not vote on it or act on behalf of the City. On motion by Mr. Toscano, seconded by Mr. Caravati, Council voted (Ayes: Mr. Caravati, Mr. Cox, Ms. Daugherty, Ms. Richards, Mr. Toscano. Noes: None) to meet in a closed session for the purpose of appointing members to various City boards or agencies, as authorized by Section 2.1-344(A)(1) of the Virginia Code; for the purpose of considering fhe acquisition of real property for public purpose, or the disposition of publicly held property, when discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the City, as authorized by Section 2.1- 344(A)(3) of the Virginia Code, and more specifically described as (1) property near First Street ~ (2) properey near West Main Street; and for the purpose ofconsultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members, consultants or attorneys on two matters pertaining to actual or probably litigation, where such briefing in an open meeting would adversely affect the negotiating or litigating position of the City, as authorized by Section 2.1-344(A)(7) of the Virginia Code.