Lynchburg council reopens public comment after dispute over June 23 adjournment

Lynchburg City Council voted 4-3 to amend its agenda and allow citizens who said they were denied an opportunity to speak at a June 23 public hearing to speak at the June 24 meeting.

Council members and members of the public spent more than an hour debating whether the special meeting on June 23 had been properly adjourned and whether three council members met informally afterward in a way that violated the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. Councilmember Timmer, reading from a lengthy prepared statement, argued the council's rules require recorded votes and said the actions taken June 23 "violated this rule, as there was not a casting of votes." Councilmember Feraldi said the adjournment had been intended to spare residents a long wait: "We were trying to save y'all 7 or 8 hours of your night," he said.

The disagreement spilled into public comment at the June 24 meeting. Dozens of residents came to speak about the budget and property taxes; several said they had made the effort to attend the June 23 hearing and were frustrated they could not speak then. Sam Howe of Ward 1, who said he attended June 23, criticized recent tax proposals and urged the council to lower the personal property (car) tax instead of shifting property tax burdens onto homeowners: "That's not tax relief. That is a tax shift," he said.

Council members pressing for reopening the comment period said many residents had taken time off work or arranged childcare to attend the June 23 hearing and deserved the chance to be heard. Others on the dais said the council had met procedural obligations and that staff had advised that the earlier meeting had been adjourned. Virginia FOIA and the council's rules were invoked repeatedly: Councilmember Timmer cited specific sections requiring recorded votes and public notice, while others described the June 23 sequence as an attempt to end a meeting that had no prospect of passage.

After the 4-3 vote to amend the agenda, council agreed to permit five people who said they were prevented from speaking at the June 23 hearing to speak at the end of the public comment portion of the June 24 meeting. Several speakers used the reopened time to discuss the proposed tax changes and the budget process.

Council members also made several other procedural rulings at the meeting as they moved on to the rest of the agenda; multiple speakers and residents commented that the public should be able to expect consistent application of the council's rules.

The council's exchange Thursday underlined ongoing tension between members over meeting procedure, the application of attorney-client privilege, and how to balance efficient meeting management with public participation. Several council members said they want clearer, consistently applied rules so that similar disputes do not recur.

Ending: The council's decision to allow additional public comment resolved the immediate dispute over speakers from June 23, but it did not resolve the larger disagreement among council members about meeting procedure and the proper use of closed sessions and adjournments. Several council members said they intend to press for clearer rules and better communications with staff to prevent similar breakdowns in the future.