Prince William supervisors talk giving themselves a pay raise

Update

Following publication of the original story, county spokesman Jason Grant asked that certain points that were made in the article be clarified.

“The question I think was, ‘Can they talk about their salaries in closed session?’ And so, to that question, yes – they can talk about salaries in the closed session. Now the specifics the discussions may entail – that I can’t comment on. But that’s why they have legal counsel, so that certain discussions in closed session remain appropriate to the exemption,” said Grant.

In regards to his comments about the lawfulness of supervisors speaking about what occurred in closed session, Grant clarified, “I’m very careful not to articulate what’s lawful or unlawful. I don’t know what – legally – what they can or cannot articulate. If it’s a question of whether a supervisor can discuss the items in closed session…I don’t know if that’s Virginia Code specifically or aspects of it, but I can say that the closed session is confidential, and we’re not to disclose – as staff. And we’re told whatever happens in closed session stays in closed session. Now what can be discussed specifically [in terms of] what the board does report out, sometimes…I don’t know where the specifics lie as to what can or cannot be discussed.”

Original post

On Tuesday night, the Prince William County Board of Supervisors went into closed session – which caused quite a stir.

Two members of the county’s highest governing body stormed out. They claimed the other five board members were talking about giving themselves a pay raise, and that such matters should be discussed in public and not behind closed doors.

During a closed session, members of the public and press are not allowed to attend, and there is no recording made available of what has been said. The session is typically called for private or personal matters of a sensitive nature that supervisors may not be able to discuss publicly.

Pay raises for supervisors

Prior to the calling of the closed session, the acting County Attorney Michele Robl announced that among the four items to be discussed, “legal advice in a personnel matter regarding salaries,” was listed.

On the board agenda for the meeting, a pay raise for supervisors was listed under Supervisor’s time, but it was not discussed in Tuesday’s public session.

It was on the agenda because the supervisors want to be sure their compensation is comparable to other localities.

Fairfax County leaders in March voted to give themselves a pay increase. Starting in January 2016, Chairman At-large Sharon Bulova will receive $100,000 annually while other board members will get $95,000 per year.

In Prince William, the last time the board voted to approve a raise for the supervisors was in 2007, according to county documents.

Chairman At-Large Corey Stewart is paid $49, 452 a year, and the other supervisors are paid $43,422 a year.

It’s fair to point out Fairfax County Supervisors work at their jobs full time, while Prince William supervisors have other full-time jobs outside their local government duties, or are retired. 

Why the closed session?

With the item of pay raises listed as an open session agenda item, many asked why the supervisors decided to call for a closed session to talk about compensation. They also wanted to know whether or not it was legal for them to do so.

According to county spokesman Jason Grant, the supervisors were legally within their rights to call a closed session to speak about salaries, because they fall within the category of public officers – which have an allowable clause in the Virginia Code.

“The County Attorney didn’t want to comment to [the media] because they can’t discuss what’s discussed in closed session. No one is supposed to be talking about what’s in closed session…I have no idea what’s discussed or not…the County Attorney stated during that meeting…there were four items. One of those items was public officers – so it’s discussion of salary of public officers…the Virginia Code does allow discussion of salaries of public officers to be held in closed meetings. It also allows for consultation with legal counsel by a public body,” said Grant.

So, we were curious and checked state law to see what the Prince William County Board of Supervisors could talk about in closed session.

Section 2.2-3711.1 and 2.2-3711.7 of the Virginia Code states:

Public bodies may hold closed meetings only for the following purposes:

Discussion, consideration, or interviews of prospective candidates for employment; assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining, or resignation of specific public officers, appointees, or employees of any public body; and evaluation of performance of departments or schools of public institutions of higher education where such evaluation will necessarily involve discussion of the performance of specific individuals. Any teacher shall be permitted to be present during a closed meeting in which there is a discussion or consideration of a disciplinary matter that involves the teacher and some student and the student involved in the matter is present, provided the teacher makes a written request to be present to the presiding officer of the appropriate board.

Consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members or consultants pertaining to actual or probable litigation, where such consultation or briefing in open meeting would adversely affect the negotiating or litigating posture of the public body; and consultation with legal counsel employed or retained by a public body regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel. For the purposes of this subdivision, “probable litigation” means litigation that has been specifically threatened or on which the public body or its legal counsel has a reasonable basis to believe will be commenced by or against a known party. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to permit the closure of a meeting merely because an attorney representing the public body is in attendance or is consulted on a matter.

The part that crosses into gray area is not the supervisor’s speaking about salaries as public officers in a closed session, it’s what exactly that gets discussed that could potentially be a legal issue.

“Can they talk about salaries? Yes. Now what the specific discussion is – there may be [gray] areas,” said Grant.

Supervisors react

During the closed session, two supervisors – Pete Candland, of Gainesville, and Jeanine Lawson, of Brentsville – abruptly left the session.

According to Candland, he left because he felt uncomfortable about the things being discussed in the closed session.

“When they brought up the salary increases, they brought up two issues. One – the legality of whether we can give ourselves increases – and what the time frame is. And I made it clear that I’m fine talking about whether we can legally do it…what I’m not comfortable with is whether we should do it, or the specifics around it…I informed the rest of the board if that was going to be any part of the discussion, that I was going to leave…,” said Candland.

“I will say that they started discussing numbers and people started expressing opinions about it, and that’s where I felt it just went too [far]. And anything that happened after that, I’m not sure – I was not there for [it]…nobody thought there was any problem [with the discussion] enough to leave or to protest the discussion besides myself and Supervisor Lawson,” he added.

Candland admitted that he was not in the room to overhear anything about specific discussion on pay raises for the supervisors, so he cannot verify that it was discussed in closed session.

Additionally, it is unlawful for supervisors to disclose information given in a closed session unless it is a general statement or there is a majority consensus from the board, stated Grant.

Lawson stated that she did not want to comment on her decision to leave the closed session, but did say she was planning to vote down any measure for pay raises for the supervisors.

“I was planning to vote against [the raise], but a vote wasn’t taken,” said Lawson.

Board Chairman, At-large Corey Stewart asserted that everything discussed within the closed session was legal and that it followed the allowances made for talk of salaries in the Virginia Code.

“As you know, Board members cannot discuss the contents of our closed sessions. I can say, however, that the Board followed the advice of the County Attorney and that the Board complied with the law,” said Stewart.

Potomac Local called other members of the Board of Supervisors. They did not return requests for comment.

Do the supervisors deserve a raise?

While the rationale for parties in favor and opposed to giving the supervisors a raise, the question still stands – do they deserve it?

According to Candland, they don’t.

“I don’t think we deserve [a raise]. We’ve raised taxes the last four years – I don’t think we’ve earned a pay increase,” said Candland.

Regardless of what was discussed in closed session, any further movement to provide a pay raise to the supervisors would have to take place by July 1, and would have to be voted on in an open meeting, stated Grant.

Candland said that the item for supervisor pay was not on the draft agenda for the next board meeting.

“I get a feeling that this discussion is probably dead now,” said Candland.