At the January 18th Charlottesville City Council meeting, City Councilor Maurice Cox presented a proposal to "open up" the procedure for selecting members of Boards and Commissions, asking that the current process for selecting members of the Board of Architectural Review be used as a test case.

At the council meeting, his proposal was received and discussed. According to City Councilor Blake Caravati, counter proposals were made by City Councilor Meredith Richards, upon which a consensus was reached by at least three of the five members and the current slightly changed process was fixed.

Subsequently, the 14 BAR candidates were notified and have complied with this process. Their answers to Council questions are posted on the Web and are available to all. Interviews have been and are being scheduled.

On February 2, 2000, I received a copy of Maurice Cox's modified proposal with a request by Maurice for citizen input with the hope that it might receive increased council support and be implemented at their February 7th meeting. Item 1 of the new proposal incorporated modifications already made by Council. At his request, I sent the new proposal out on electronic mail.

On February 3, 2000, I received a response from City Councilor David Toscano, indicating that it was perfectly appropriate to review the process for future appointments, but that it made no sense to start the BAR application process anew.

On February 3, 2000, these sentiments were amplified by City Councilor Blake Caravati, with the following comments:

"'I am intrigued with the possibility of opening interviews for the major boards and can see some positive results. There are also some possible negative results. The idea bears further study and discussion by Council. However, I cannot support voting on any resolution on changing our process this dramatically at the upcoming Council meeting. My reasons for taking a more studied view are as follows:

a/ Although on the surface the idea calls for and seems to advocate a more open and transparent process, such a quick non-agenda - unnoticed proposal for a significant change in a long standing process absolutely violates all principals of a deliberate and open Council process. To consider voting on such a change without the benefit and ability of all citizens to comment I believe is presumptuous and contradictory with the intent of the proposed change.

b/ Although the idea for an open interview process may be a good one, I would/will ask staff to poll other cities and counties ( and VML ) to get more information so that we don't risk reinventing the wheel (square or round ). For me political leadership is absolutely based in a deliberative process that is not only open to the public comment (with ample notice) but also underpinned by solid research and consideration. Why the rush to judgment?

I will be interested to find out how other Councilors and all citizens feel about this proposal.'"

Individuals who wish to e-mail their council members before the upcoming meeting may reach them at:

Blake Caravati caravati@cstone.net. Maurice Cox mdc5e@virginia.edu. Virginia Daugherty <virginia@papercraft.com>. Meredith Richards mmrich@cstone.net. David Toscano toscano@cstone.net.

You may also send comments to Clerk of Council Jeanne Cox: coxj@ci.charlottesville.va.us.

Readers Respond

Individuals who wish to speculate about how these offerings relate to the inner workings of city council or to the current race for city council may send their missives to george@loper.org for posting on the web.

To date, I have received responses from George H. Gilliam, from Chace Anderson, and from Lloyd Snook [cvllelaw@rlc.net].