Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Foundation raises Open Meetings Act concerns about utility agreement; council hears call for more transparency
Summary
A Jefferson County Foundation representative said FOIA records show gaps between CTUB staff actions and the board chair's signature on a groundwater bottling agreement, questioned public notice and called for the city to require CTUB to follow open meetings requirements.
A representative of the Jefferson County Foundation told the Charles Town City Council she was "very frustrated at the lack of robust public process" surrounding a contract between the Charles Town Utility Board (CTUB), the utility and Sidewinder/SeaTub, the developer of a proposed groundwater bottling plant.
Christine Wymer said FOIA records and a timeline of internal emails show a large gap between the general manager's approval and the board chair's signing. She said it was "impossible for the public to tell" the matter was related to the bottling development and argued the CTUB board did not follow the Open Meetings Act because the public could not see the issue on clearly labeled agendas.
Wymer urged the council to require that CTUB adhere to the Open Meetings Act and to improve clarity on agendas and public notices. "We are very frustrated at the lack of robust public process that went into making this agreement," she said.
Council members acknowledged the public concern and asked staff to review the FOIA timeline and the agreement and to report back. No formal council action to compel CTUB was taken at the meeting; the matter was recorded as public comment and referred to staff for follow-up and clarification.
The council did not take a formal vote to rescind or modify the agreement during the meeting and no CTUB official was present to respond. Council members requested staff investigate the FOIA timeline that Wymer presented and bring findings and recommendations to a future meeting so council can consider whether further action is necessary to ensure compliance with state open meetings requirements.
