{"id":28028,"date":"2026-02-19T12:30:17","date_gmt":"2026-02-19T17:30:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fluvannareview.com\/?p=28028"},"modified":"2026-02-19T12:30:19","modified_gmt":"2026-02-19T17:30:19","slug":"supervisors-consider-policy-change-after-tenaska-town-hall-is-canceled","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fluvannareview.com\/2026\/02\/supervisors-consider-policy-change-after-tenaska-town-hall-is-canceled\/","title":{"rendered":"Supervisors consider policy change after Tenaska town hall is canceled"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

BY HEATHER MICHON
EDITOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The cancellation of a Lake Monticello town hall on Tenaska\u2019s proposed second natural gas plant has exposed differing interpretations of Virginia\u2019s open-meeting law and prompted the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors to consider adding a policy to its bylaws limiting how many members may attend community events together.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Lake Monticello Owners Association (LMOA) announced Feb. 10 that it was canceling a Feb. 12 town hall, where residents would have had the opportunity to question supervisors Tony O\u2019Brien (Rivanna) and Tim Hodge (Palmyra), along with Tenaska representatives, about the proposed Expedition Generation project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The cancellation was prompted by word that a third supervisor, Chris Fairchild of the Cunningham District, was also planning to attend.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cUnder Virginia public meeting requirements, this would constitute a special session of the Board of Supervisors, which must be fully open and accessible to the public,\u201d LMOA said in an announcement Tuesday evening.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fairchild said in a Facebook post Tuesday that he wanted to be there \u201cmerely as an audience member,\u201d and wrote that \u201cFluvanna\u2019s attorney advised that as long as I would not have participated in formal conversations my attendance as a citizen and LMOA member would not have been in violation, and the BOS would not have had to call a special meeting.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But LMOA Communications Director Marieke Henry said County Attorney Dan Whitten advised the association against holding the meeting if three supervisors were in attendance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe bottom line was his advice was not to have it,\u201d Henry said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>Open meeting law at issue<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Megan Rhyne, executive director of the Virginia Coalition for Open Government, said the Virginia Freedom of Information Act does not automatically treat the presence of three members of a public body at an event as a meeting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFOIA says that it is a meeting if three or more gather to talk about public business,\u201d Rhyne said. \u201cThe key is \u2018talk about\u2019 more than what is or isn\u2019t \u2018public business.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

She said supervisors may attend forums or community gatherings so long as they do not discuss public business among themselves without proper notice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThey can all go to the meeting, but they shouldn\u2019t be talking among themselves \u2014 even through a facilitator or mediator,\u201d she said. \u201cBetter still, they should sit apart from each other to remove the temptation and the perception that they\u2019re talking about public business.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, if three or more members plan to discuss public business among themselves, notice must be given, and the meeting must be open to the public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The differing interpretations hinge on whether the mere presence of three supervisors at a public forum constitutes a meeting under FOIA, or whether a meeting occurs only if they discuss public business among themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fluvanna County has long taken a stricter interpretation of FOIA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSince I have served on the Board, it has been the long-established practice that the presence of three members \u2014 regardless of whether one member remains silent \u2014 requires the calling of a special meeting,\u201d O\u2019Brien said. \u201cThis practice originated under Fred Payne and was reaffirmed by Whitten in 2023.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a Feb. 12 statement, the county said Whitten advised that if three or more supervisors attended and public business was discussed, the gathering would qualify as a \u201cmeeting\u201d under Virginia Code \u00a7 2.2-3701 and would require formal notice as a special meeting open to the public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The county cited the 2023 Virginia Supreme Court decision in Gloss v. Wheeler<\/em>. In that case, the court held that a gathering of four Prince William County supervisors to discuss public business constituted a meeting subject to FOIA notice requirements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After reviewing the county\u2019s statement, Rhyne said the county attorney appeared to be taking a cautious approach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt sounds like the county attorney is erring on the side of caution,\u201d she said. \u201cWhile I think there is a little more wiggle room \u2014 that they can attend without calling a special meeting, so long as they don\u2019t talk amongst themselves \u2014 the attorney seems to want to remove the temptation for them to even be in a position where they might have that group conversation. As a citizen, I would appreciate that caution.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>Fallout and next steps<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

O\u2019Brien said he requested that LMOA cancel the meeting after discussions arose about whether a third supervisor\u2019s attendance would trigger FOIA requirements and create potential legal exposure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He said a last-minute alternative format had been proposed but that, in his view, it still introduced \u201cunnecessary legal risk.\u201d He added that a closed session was scheduled Feb. 11 to further evaluate the issue, making it impractical to proceed on Feb. 12.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAt no point was I under the impression that Tony O\u2019Brien didn\u2019t want to have this meeting,\u201d said Marieke Henry. She said LMOA\u2019s decision to cancel was ultimately based on the county\u2019s legal guidance and practical considerations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A special meeting open to the public could have strained the association\u2019s security resources and physical capacity. Henry noted that Lake Monticello\u2019s main meeting room holds about 50 people, with limited space for overflow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At its Feb. 18 meeting, the Board is scheduled to consider codifying new language in its bylaws addressing community engagement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proposed policy would allow individual supervisors to hold or participate in town halls and other community gatherings at their discretion, but limit attendance to no more than two board members at any such event.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because FOIA defines a meeting as a gathering of three or more members to discuss public business, the two-member limit would prevent such events from triggering special meeting requirements in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Depending on the outcome of the Feb. 18 vote, O\u2019Brien said a new town hall may be scheduled in early March.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

BY HEATHER MICHONEDITOR The cancellation of a Lake Monticello town hall on Tenaska\u2019s proposed second natural gas plant has exposed differing interpretations of Virginia\u2019s open-meeting law and prompted the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors to consider adding a policy to its bylaws limiting how many members may attend community events together. The Lake Monticello Owners […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":21817,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[58,23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28028","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-government","category-latest_news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fluvannareview.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28028"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fluvannareview.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fluvannareview.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fluvannareview.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fluvannareview.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28028"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fluvannareview.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28028\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28029,"href":"https:\/\/fluvannareview.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28028\/revisions\/28029"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fluvannareview.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/21817"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fluvannareview.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28028"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fluvannareview.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28028"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fluvannareview.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28028"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}