Mayor Stephanie Reed (R) and Vice-Mayor Chris Faraldi (R) voted with the Council's two democrats to censure two of the Council's Conservatives
PLEASE NOTE: This article is not intended to just be a political hit piece on my part, it is simply intended to be my attempt at providing an analysis from my perspective of the Lynchburg City Council Special Meeting which occurred on August 13th, 2024.
After a grueling debate consisting primarily of defenses - though, as noted during the speeches, not legal defenses - by five-term Councilman Jeff Helgeson and first-term Councilman Martin Misjuns, Lynchburg City Council voted in a 4-3 vote (for: Reed (R) , Faraldi (R) , Dolan (D), and Wilder (D), against: Helgeson (R) , Misjuns (R), and Taylor (R) ) to censure Misjuns and Helgeson for alleged violation of attorney-client privilege.
This is the latest chapter in a years-long conflict mainly between the five-republican majority on Lynchburg, Virginia’s City Council.
At the moment, let’s fast forward to near the end of the meeting to discuss the result. I will delve more into the content of the meeting below, and thus arrange this article topically rather than chronologically.
As Mayor Reed called for the vote on the primary motion, which was to pass the resolution of censure (after a substitute motion made by Councilman Helgeson failed), Councilman Misjuns called for a point-of-order, objecting that he had not been allowed time to speak to the primary motion. After appearing that she would push the motion to a vote without further discussion amidst objection from Councilman Misjuns, Mayor Reed - in an aggravated look of disgust - turned to Councilman Misjuns, appearing to acknowledge his request to speak on the primary motion. After it seemed as though the City Attorney, Mr Freedman, was not objecting to Councilman Misjuns’ request to speak, Mayor Reed again jumped in, although the first part of the audio is difficult to hear as her microphone is turned on about halfway through her sentence. She appears to have said “Mr Freedman, didn’t he just speak to all of those reasons why he didn’t believe we should have…” before Misjuns cut her off, interjecting “that’s not your interpretation, I’m talking to the attorney, Madam Mayor, it’s the attorney’s interpretation. You don’t live inside my mind.”
Eventually, the resolution censuring Helgeson and Misjuns was passed as was previously mentioned. Immediately afterwards, Mayor Reed adjourned the meeting to sparse applause and audible booing from the audience. In addition to accusing them of violating attorney-client privilege (though, without getting too deep into the weeds, I found Helgeson and Misjuns’ arguments as to why their public statements were not indeed a breach of attorney-client privilege convincing), they also accuse Councilman Helgeson of “immorally, deceptively, and under-handedly record[ing] a private and privileged phone call with the City Attorney”. However, as Helgeson pointed out, nothing in Virginia law prohibits a party from recording a phone conversation as long as at least one party on the call consents, nor is there a requirement of notification to that other party who is not recording the call, at least as I understand the law. There are additional reasons given in the resolution for the censure, but those are the main two.
Ultimately, the defense of Helgeson and Misjuns rested on two things: they a) disputed the truthfulness of what was being claimed in the resolution and b) contended that because they were provided the resolution on extremely short notice before the special City Council meeting was called, they were being denied due process. However, the rest of the Council did not seem convinced, with City Attorney Freedman seeming to indicate that because this was not a judicial proceeding, but rather a legislative proceeding, due process did not apply in this scenario.
Result of the Censure:
Councilman Jeff Helgeson: is fined the equivalent of one-month’s pay of a Councilmember, is barred from submitting a review of City Attorney Freedman’s performance and barred from discussing Mr. Freedman’s compensation (i.e. salary), and City Attorney Freedman is no longer responsible to report to Councilman Helgeson through the period of July 1, 2023, and December 31, 2024 (it does appear that this will have the effect of retroactively nullifying previous performance evaluations submitted by Councilman Helgeson for that entire time period)
Councilman Martin Misjuns: is fined the equivalent of two-month’s pay (this being his second censure) of a Councilmember, is barred from submitting a review of City Attorney Freedman’s performance and barred from discussing Mr. Freedman’s compensation (i.e. salary), and City Attorney Freedman is no longer responsible to report to Councilman Misjuns through the period of July 1, 2023, and December 31, 2024 (it does appear that this will have the effect of retroactively nullifying previous performance evaluations submitted by Councilman Misjuns for that entire time period)
My Evaluation of Each Councilmember:
Chris Faraldi: I was most appalled by the antics of Councilman Faraldi (please remember, as I noted above, this is not intended to simply be just another political hit piece, but rather, my analysis of the events).
With that said, Faraldi at many points simply acts like a child in the whining tone of voice he uses when speaking (see about the 1:17:00 mark at the video link below), demeaningly refers to Councilmen Helgeson and Misjuns as “these two” with a head nod in each of their directions (1:17:44), accuses the audience of working “so dang hard” with the two of them to cause “chaos in this city” (also 1:17:44) (Note: Peter Alexander, who challenged Chris Faraldi in the Republican primary for the latter’s Ward IV seat and lost by a narrow margin of 21 votes, did not appear to be initially present for the start of the meeting. At this point in the meeting he can be seen on camera. When Faraldi makes these accusations he appears to be looking in at least the same general direction of Alexander, making it not a far stretch to speculate - and do note that it is purely speculative - that he was directing these remarks at Alexander and his supporters in the room). Faraldi also at times appears to grit his teeth in anger (1:17:51) and spars with the crowd (1:17:53). He then continues to do so, replying “right”, “keep it up” (1:17:59) and - after someone in the crowd appears to call the council “weasels”, replies “Oh good grief. The only weasels up here are the ones who are gonna just take this to court anyway, we know that’s what they do best.” (1:18:10) After noting that he still had the floor, the recently-cemented Ward IV Republican nominee Faraldi adds “I’d like to point out anyway, these fines, they’re just gonna be paid by two men in this room anyway. I see ‘em, in here right now, the biggest donors in Lynchburg. They’re just gonna pay it off for ‘em.” (1:18:27) He then ironically calls for decorum (1:19:03).
Councilwoman MaryJane Dolan: a Democrat, she noted that she was suffering “PSTD [sic]” and suffering over the last twenty months of a dysfunctional council. She proceeded to attack the Republican majority on Council as being the reason for the body’s alleged dysfunction.
Councilman Sterling Wilder: he is the other Democrat on Council. I watched the vast majority of the replay of the meeting, and I don't believe I heard a single word other than the “yes” or “no” on voting items from Councilman Wilder.
Mayor Stephanie Reed: she joined Faraldi during her various speaking times in sparring with the crowd (see, for example, 1:24:12), one time breaking into a praise song in response to the heckling and appearing to misquote the lyrics to CeCe Winans’ song “Goodness of God”. As mentioned above, when she called for the vote on the primary motion (after a substitute motion made by Councilman Helgeson failed), Councilman Misjuns called for a point-of-order, objecting that he had not been allowed time to speak to the primary motion (which was whether or not to pass the resolution of censure). After appearing that she would push the motion to a vote without further discussion amidst objection from Councilman Misjuns, she - in an aggravated look of disgust (1:25:04) - turned to Councilman Misjuns, appearing to acknowledge his request to speak on the primary motion.
Councilman Jeff Helgeson: I thought he very calmly and humbly offered an honest defense of himself and Councilman Misjuns, and also displayed a willingness to ask forgiveness if he had offended anyone, though he did not appear to have believed that he had done anything wrong, which is also the side I happen to find myself landing on as well. Overall, I really don’t have a critique to offer of his behavior.
Councilman Martin Misjuns: I thought Councilman Misjuns also generally carried himself with an attitude of calm, which helped in crafting the perspective that he and Helgeson were the “adults in the room” that the audience and Lynchburg’s citizens more broadly were and have been begging for. He tended to be more passionate in his defense than Councilman Helgeson, but other than the occasional off-handed remarks which I felt were ill-timed and him straying from his notes, I thought he was very reasonable, never appearing to lose his calm from everything that I saw.
Councilman Larry Taylor: He was obviously very much hoping that they would not have to actually vote on the resolution (he was eventually a no vote), and clearly thought that all the drama on City Council has been taken way too far. Near the beginning he requests that the two sides basically ask for and accept forgiveness from each other, but when grievances get to the point of a public meeting like this, such a request is simply not going to go anywhere, although the request was definitely posed with good intentions by Councilman Taylor and it’s a shame that it got them nowhere.
Lynchburg residents, what do you think?
RESOURCES:
Video stream of the City Council meeting: https://lynchburgva.portal.civicclerk.com/event/2855/media
Resolution of censure: https://www.lynchburgva.gov/842/Council-Meeting-Agendas-Minutes-Video (click on this link, scroll to the August 13, 2024, special meeting, hover over the download arrow and select “Agenda Packet (PDF)” and then, once downloaded, you will be able to view the resolution on pages 2-6 of the pdf.
Comments