Petersburg City Council votes to enter closed session on real property, contracts, personnel and litigation

The Petersburg (Independent City) City Council voted to convene a closed session under Virginia Code §2.2-3711 to discuss acquisition and disposition of real property, legal advice regarding probable litigation, the award of a public contract and personnel matters, the council’s meeting transcript shows.

Councilor Myers moved to convene the closed session; the transcript records a second identified as “Councilwoman Smithley.” The council took a roll-call vote and the motion carried. The council then recessed into closed session. After the closed session, Councilman Smith Lee moved to certify, Councilman Westbrook seconded, and the council took a second roll-call vote certifying that only the matters listed in the motion had been discussed; the vote was recorded as affirmative by the members present.

The meeting record lists the legal basis for the session as Virginia Code §2.2-3711, the state statute authorizing certain closed meetings. The transcript identifies the council’s purposes as: consideration of acquisition or disposition of real property for public purposes; receiving legal advice and updates on actual or probable litigation; discussion regarding the award of a public contract involving expenditure of city funds and its terms and scope; and discussion pertaining to the performance, assignment and appointment of specific city public employees. The council did not disclose substantive details of those matters in open session.

The transcript shows the mayor and council conducted the required certification vote after the closed session. Roll-call responses recorded in the transcript include affirmative votes for Councilor Cuthbert, Councilor Jones, Councilor/Man Meyers (recorded as “Meyers/Meyers” in parts of the transcript), Councilor Westbrook, Councilman Smith Lee, Vice Mayor Hill and Mayor Perham. The transcript records the meeting returning to open session with the statement that the closed session had concluded; no further public details about the substance of the closed discussion were provided in the transcript.

Because the matters were discussed in closed session, the council did not provide further public action or documents in the transcript about the property transactions, contract terms, personnel actions or litigation updates. The transcript does not specify dates, property addresses, contract identifiers, personnel names beyond council members, or any final decisions reached on those substantive topics while in closed session.

The council’s recorded steps followed the procedural elements required by state law: a motion and second to go into a closed meeting, a roll-call vote to convene, and a subsequent roll-call certification that only the permitted subjects were discussed. The transcript does not record any additional public directives, assignments to staff, or follow-up timelines in open session.