Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council adopts investigative-hearing rules after heated debate and objections
Summary
The council adopted a resolution to add rules and procedures for investigative hearings (resolution cited as BR 2024-...), despite objections from some members who said the draft was rushed and raised constitutional questions tied to pending litigation. The measure passed by roll-call vote.
The Blue Ridge City Council voted to adopt a resolution to establish rules and procedures for investigative hearings, saying the action implements requirements in the city charter. The motion identified the resolution as a Blue Ridge resolution (recorded in the motion text as BR 2024-...) and framed the change as a corrective step to comply with charter duties.
Several council members objected that the draft had been circulated on short notice and that doing so while litigation concerning the charter is pending raised procedural and constitutional concerns. One member asked for more time to consult with the drafter and the city attorney and suggested that a supermajority requirement for removal actions would better protect elected officials in the future. Another member said the charter requires the council to adopt rules of procedure and that failing to do so because of litigation would impede city business.
The debate included claims that the draft was written by an attorney involved in litigation and lacked input from the city attorney; some council members asked that those emailed statements from the absent member participating by phone be incorporated into the official record. After procedural votes about extending discussion and handling motions, the council held a roll-call vote that recorded Dr Wayy voting No, Council member Bill voting Yes, Christie No, Jack Yes and Angie Yes; the resolution was entered into the official record as adopted.
Council members who voted No asked that their concerns be noted in the minutes. The transcript records exchanges over whether the pending lawsuits and the status of certain council members as defendants require recusal or delay; the council majority concluded adoption was required by the charter and proceeded.
