Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Relations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Manassas board debates "three‑on‑three" talks with city council, raises transparency concerns
Summary
Board members spent much of the meeting debating recurring small-delegation meetings with city council ("three-on-three"). Concerns centered on transparency, recordkeeping and whether the format sidesteps full-board input; members proposed recording notes, rotating representatives or forming a jointly noticed committee.
An extended exchange at the Manassas City School Board work session focused on the recurring "three-on-three" meetings between a subset of the school board and city council members. Several members described the format as useful for relationship-building, while others warned it can erode transparency and create the appearance of pre-decision making.
Board members raised multiple specific concerns: lack of minutes or a public record for some small-group meetings, inconsistent notification of topics to the full board, and instances where board members said the school division's priorities were not fully considered in city budget actions. Vice Chair Dr. Newman said he felt the division had been "swept under the rug" in prior interactions and that his positions were sometimes mischaracterized in follow-up city discussion.
Those critical of the current practice urged changes to improve public accountability: options included recording minutes or summaries of every small-group meeting, rotating which board members attend so different perspectives are represented, or converting the arrangement to a formally noticed joint committee that would create a public record. Supporters said joint public meetings and more formal processes can be logistically difficult and argued for incremental fixes: better pre-briefs for the chair who attends the meetings and clearer talking points to ensure consistent board advocacy.
Budget advocacy emerged as a practical concern. Board members discussed asking city council for funding to cover identified unmet needs (the transcript referenced a roughly $1.3 million ask to cover staffing and other priorities, including a mention that about $800,000 of that would fund six full‑time positions). Several members urged a coordinated, board-wide outreach to city councilmembers between now and the council's budget vote dates.
The conversation included pointed claims and rebuttals: Dr. Newman said his office was not consulted in ways he had expected; other members said they had been satisfied with city communication. The board agreed on process steps to improve transparency but did not take a formal vote at the work session to end or continue the three-on-three format.
What's next: Members asked staff to prepare talking points and minutes/templates that could be shared after small‑group meetings. The board also planned to discuss whether to ask city council to appoint a joint committee or to continue the format with improved reporting protocols. Several board members urged prompt outreach as the city council advances its budget process over the next weeks.
