City Council voted to cut $100,000 from the mayor’s security detail. Councilor Samuels privately directed a city employee to change “mayor’s security detail” to the “311 Call Center.” The following is a summary of facts.
March 12th. Mayor Jones presents the FY2013-2014 budget at a special meeting of city council. The Biennial Fiscal Plan proposes a police budget that includes $311,052 for “Executive Protection” that “provides security and protection services for the Office of the Mayor.” The Mayor introduces 24 budget ordinances including Ordinance 2013-48, the General Fund budget that includes the police budget.
April 8th. City council holds a public hearing on the proposed budget ordinances.
April 10th. City council distributes revised budget review schedule. Final adoption of budget is scheduled for council’s regular meeting on May 13th.
May 6th. City council holds a budget work session to agree on amendments to the proposed budget. Councilor Trammell asks if the mayor gets $400,000 for his security detail. Chairman Samuels says he does not know and did not see it in the budget. Councilor Trammell proposes a reduction of $100,000 to the police budget and a text amendment to insure that the reduction is applied to the mayor’s security detail . Chairman Samuels calls for a show of hands in favor of the reduction. The reduction is adopted with councilors Agelasto, Baliles, Hilbert, Samuels and Trammell voting in favor of the reduction. Vincent Jones, Deputy Council Chief of Staff, attends the meeting and records council’s amendments to the proposed budget. Vincent Jones later says: “If I recall correctly, that amount [of $400,000] was mentioned, but not verified, during discussion between Council and Administration in response to on-the-spot inquiries from Council on May 6.”
May 7th. Vincent Jones sends three budget amendment spreadsheet files to Lou Ali, council chief of staff:
Lou, attached are the revised FY 14-15 budget amendment docs from last night’s meeting. We are continuing to work with the City Attorney on amendment introduction for tomorrow.
The general fund spreadsheet includes an entry attributed to Mr. Samuels of $100,000 to “Decrease funding for Mayor’s security detail – Reduction.” Lou Ali, forwards the files to city council:
Council amendments are attached. Please review. (There may be slight changes as Vincent and Haskell are still reviewing the final documents.) They will be introduced during tomorrow’s special meeting.
May 8th. Television station WTVR reports that council voted to cut $100,000 from the mayor’s security detail. The report includes a statement from councilor Trammell on the possibility of further revisions to the security detail:
Monday night’s vote wasn’t the last on the budget. There will be revisions but Trammell says not from her– not on this.
“I know it’s not okay with me and four other council members because we’re looking at things that got cut last night,” said Trammell.
Vincent Jones prepares first draft of council amendments for introduction on May 8th. The draft lists a $100,000 reduction to the “mayor’s security detail.”
Vincent Jones prepares a revised version of council amendments for introduction on May 8th. The revised version lists a $100,000 reduction to “311 Call Center.” Vincent Jones later confirms that “[t]he draft document was changed at the direction of the President of the Council” and that “[t]his was the revised final document prepared for introduction, originally planned for May 8, 2013.”
City Council holds special meeting. Jean Capel, interim city clerk, later says she provided council with a copy of amended ordinance 2013-48. The amended ordinance references attachments entitled “Council Amendments. FY20 14 and FY20 15 General Fund Amendments” and “Richmond City Council- Text Amendments.” The general fund attachment lists a $100,000 reduction to “311 Call Center.” The attachment is dated May 8th. The text amendments did not include the restriction that was adopted by city council on May 6th to limit the mayor’s security detail budget. Later, Jean Capel says she does not remember having any budget documents at the beginning of the meeting.
It is unknown if any councilors looked through the documents and saw the change. Councilor Trammell was asked later for the date she first learn that anyone might be planning to restore $100,000 to the mayor’s security detail budget. Her response did not answer the question:
Thank you for all of your help. Mr. Mayor got his way again as usually [sic]
At the beginning of the special meeting, councilor Samuels announces that:
At this point the next thing would be the introduction of budget amendments, the consolidated action plan and the budget amendment. However, I believe they are still being prepared.
The special meeting is recessed to await the budget documents. When the meeting resumes, councilor Samuels is absent. Councilor Robertson chairs the meeting and announces that:
“My understanding is that we have maybe a third or about half of the papers that we need for this meeting. Still do not have the balance of those papers so we cannot move forward with the agenda at this time.”
About 10 minutes later the meeting is recessed again. When the meeting resumes, councilor Robertson announces that:
“We are not…we are going to continue the General Fund, Special Fund, CIP budgets because we do not have the papers that are ready at the present time and there are council members that have to leave and we will not have a quorum.”
The meeting continues with other business. During the public hearing on unrelated papers, a speaker asks why the meeting was delayed and where is councilor Samuels.
The meeting business is concluded and councilor Robertson announces that:
There being no more business, this meeting is adjourned. Now, one of the things that have been recommended, the attorneys have given us lots of copies of the papers that we would be dealing with on the 15th. If it’s convenient for the council members to leave those at the desk, that would be good. We’ll make sure they are taken care of and make sure that they are properly put in your boxes. And make sure that all those papers are there, OK. So, the staff will come up and facilitate that. So that they will be placed in your box. All right.
No similar collecting of documents is known to have taken place.
May 13th. (Original scheduled date for budget adoption.) City council holds regular informal and formal meetings. Council’s amendments to the proposed budget are not mentioned.
May 15th. City council holds special meeting and adopts Ordinance 2013-103 (Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan) and Ordinance 2013-67 (School Budget). City council introduces amended budget ordinances. The general fund amendment lists a $100,000 reduction to “311 Call Center.” The amendment is dated May 15th and is different from the May 8th version.
There is no discussion about the budget amendments. There were no news reports on the amended proposed budget until May 26th.
May 16th. Councilor Trammell sends an email to a city resident:
Why don’t you ask the city attorney what just happened to my paper on Mr. Mayor security detail.
May 20th. Allen Jackson, city attorney, response to inquiry:
The subject matter of your question relates to communications between attorney and client. Unless the Council consents, I am not at liberty to respond. Thank you for your interest.
May 21st. Allen Jackson, city attorney, response to follow-up inquiry:
Your interest is appreciated. Thank you.
May 26th. Television station WTVR reports that the $100,000 reduction has been moved to the 311 call center, restoring $100,000 to the mayor’s security detail:
Earlier this month, Trammell was successful in getting the votes to cut the mayor’s security detail by $100,000, but she found out a revision was made to the budget.
“I said this is back room shenanigans,” Trammell said. “This was not fair to me and to the citizens of Richmond.”
Trammell said Council President Charles Samuel put a budget amendment in place that would cut $100,000 from the city’s 311 call center and add it back to the mayor’s security detail.
May 28th. (Revised scheduled date for budget adoption) City council holds regular informal and formal meeting. There is no discussion of the budget at the informal session. At the formal session councilor Trammell asks for the audio recording of the May 6th meeting to be played. It is not ready. Councilor Trammell says she thought the recording would be ready. Councilor Trammell makes a statement:
I want it to be played where I had the five votes that night. I had Jon Baliles and I had you. I had Parker. And then I had myself and Chris came out the back and then I said well I have five votes now to take only $100,000 away from the mayor’s security detail, which would have left him $300,000. I don’t know what happened after. I know that Ellen came up to me the night that you had to leave and she was running the meeting. She came up to me and she and I was talking. And I think I had Michelle’s vote too as far as to take the $100,000 away. There was an amendment put in. And, then the next thing I know, it gets taken away. And, I did not know anything about it. I was not called on it. I was not briefed about it. And I don’t know who voted along with. I guess you, I guess you changed your mind. And I guess our city attorney, who said it was OK, which I don’t know how it was OK because I’ve never seen this done before–not the first time I was on council with Larry E. Chavis. I do not ever remember to have an amendment turned around and then not have a discussion where the citizens would know about it, or even the council members for having a discussion. And, Mr. President, I don’t know how you did it. I don’t know how you or Mr. Jackson, our city attorney, did this. And, if it is legal, it should not be legal because I’ve never seen it done before. And it’s not right.
Councilor Samuels says he apologized on May 6th:
Ms. Trammell, you know on May 6th I came up to you in person and apologized for not having time to reach out to you on this budget. And, I hope that one day you will be willing to accept that apology.
City council approved the reduction late in the day on May 6th. The amended proposed budget was not scheduled for introduction until May 8th.
Councilor Samuels says he guarantees that the recording will be played:
What I’m going to do, then, is move forward with the meeting. They are going to find that for you. And my guarantee is I’m going to make sure it gets played before the meeting adjourns.
The recording was not played.
Councilor Robertson says she knew and seems to say that councilor Trammell also knew on May 8th about the plan to restore $100,000 to the mayor’s security detail [she incorrectly says May 9th]:
Mr. President, I think it would only be fair for me to make my position clear on this as well. On the 9th [8th] at the amendments, when we thought we were going to have a introduction of the amendments and that meeting was continued, we did, I did have discussions with Councilwoman Trammell and at that time it was my understanding that her amendment for the reduction of $100,000 as well as the amendment for the increase of $100,000 into the budget would be both amendments that would be introduced for discussion.”
Councilor Hilbert says he does not like what happened:
I did vote to cut this item in the budget from our meeting that evening and found out that the meeting that we attended here that there were five votes to reverse that decision and I did not know about that until that meeting. So, I don’t like that this item is in the budget, I will say that. However, I am going to vote for the whole budget because at this point I don’t want to make the perfect the enemy of the good….
Councilor Agelasto says process was not fair:
“…I do think that this particular amendment and how it was reintroduced to this budget was not done in the same process by which we had hashed out all the other budget amendments. And I don’t think that that was necessarily fair to certain members of the council. And I don’t think it was good for offering transparency for the public.”
Councilor Baliles did not say anything. A Style Weekly article later reported that councilor Samuels was not one of the five that wanted the funds restored. If that is correct, councilor Baliles is the one that changed his position.
May 29th. The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports “dust-up” and provides quotes, including:
City Council President Charles R. Samuels of the 2nd District, who initially supported stripping the money from the budget, said he was later approached by city Chief Administrative Officer Byron C. Marshall about funding for the protection unit. “Immediately after, Byron said, ‘If I can find that money somewhere else, can we put that money back in?’ ” Samuels said.
Marshall said several council members approached him about the cut, indicating that they cared less about where the money came from than taking $100,000 out to balance the budget. The money wound up coming out of the city’s 311 call center’s budget for temporary workers, Marshall said.
“It was an easy fix,” he said.
…
“The result wouldn’t have been any different, but I could have kept people better informed,” Samuels said.
Because of the mandatory budget adoption deadline, the amended proposed budget introduced on May 15th had to be adopted at the scheduled meeting on May 28th. If the amended proposed budget introduced on May 15th had included the reduction to the mayor’s security detail, as it should have, it could not have been taken out on the 28th and still meet the public notice and hearing requirements before the adoption deadline.
June 3rd. City Council’s Organizational Development Committee holds regular meeting. There is no discussion about the mayor’s security detail or the budget. The audio recording for the meeting has no comments from councilor Baliles during the entire meeting.
June 4th. Style Weekly magazine reports that councilor Samuels did not change his position:
City Council President Charles Samuels says that after Marshall proposed pulling the money from the call center’s temporary fund, a majority of City Council supported maintaining the security detail (Samuels did not).
June 7th. The Virginia Freedom of Information Act prohibits secret meetings. The five council members who supported the restoration of funds to the mayor’s security detail could not take any action outside of a council meeting that was properly announced and open to the public. It appears the councilor Samuels had no authority to direct a city employee to delete the words “Mayor’s security detail” and insert the words “311 Call Center” in a city record. As of today, there have been no reports of any call for sanctions against anyone or for an investigation into potential unethical or unlawful conduct.
Notes
Code of Virginia, Section 1-200. The common law.
The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly.
[The common law of England includes prosecution for misconduct by a public official. Recently, the former sheriff of Franklin County, Virginia, was convicted under Section 1-200.]
Code of Virginia, Section 18.2-472. False entries or destruction of records by officers.
If a clerk of any court or other public officer fraudulently make a false entry, or erase, alter, secrete or destroy any record, including a microphotographic copy, in his keeping and belonging to his office, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor and shall forfeit his office and be forever incapable of holding any office of honor, profit or trust under the Constitution of Virginia.