Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisor questions legality of changing a ‘retreat’ to a special meeting; county attorney says notice requirements satisfied
Summary
A lengthy exchange at the Greensville County Board meeting focused on whether a previously described 'retreat' could be treated as a 'special meeting' without separate notice. The county attorney said notices were sent and that attendance by all supervisors waived the notice requirement under Virginia law.
A prolonged disagreement about meeting notices consumed significant time at the start of the Greensville County Board of Supervisors’ Oct. 6 meeting as one supervisor asked for clarity about whether a retreat can be converted to a special meeting without separate notification.
The supervisor said he had received a phone call on June 3 inviting him to a retreat and later found the gathering characterized as a special meeting, and asked whether that change could legally be made without notice. He said he had consulted others who told him it could not be done and pressed county staff for an answer.
The county attorney replied that the two-day gathering had been noticed as a special meeting and that all supervisors had attended and participated. “In the law of Virginia … if every supervisor attends and participates, the notice requirement is waived,” the attorney said. He added the legality of the meeting was unaffected by what one participant remembered being called on an earlier phone call.
The supervisor continued to press for clarity about who had been contacted and whether a retreat could be changed to a special meeting, saying he could produce phone records showing he had been asked about a retreat on June 3. The attorney reiterated the distinction the county uses: regular meeting, special meeting and adjourned meeting.
Why it matters: the exchange centers on open-meetings procedure and notice requirements. Supervisors asked for clarity to avoid future confusion; the attorney described the meeting as lawfully convened.
Details: the chair moved the meeting forward after the exchange and staff said notices for the meeting had been posted. The board did not take any formal action on the question at the Oct. 6 meeting; the discussion remained a request for clarification and possible follow-up.
Next steps: the supervisor asked to have the matter clarified further and suggested bringing other participants forward to verify phone calls and communications; no formal referral or vote was recorded on the matter.
