Reforming Regional Government Regional governments in Hampton Roads have a say in taxes, tolls and major investments in critical infrastructure, but the public is largely excluded from decision making. Here are some remedies.
	The Challenge: How do we improve our “Regional Government” and restore greater trust and citizen participation?   Executive Summary: Rather than create a new "regional" layer of government, we should use regional institutions that we already have: the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRDC), the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the Virginia Port Authority, the regional public waste authority, regional transit authorities and the regional airport authorities. But we need to make their deliberations more transparent and accountable to citizens.   Many of the changes proposed here will require legislation to be passed by the General Assembly. The changes proposed for the Hampton Roads MPO appear to be within existing Federal regulations.   The Solution: Require all “regional” issues to be placed on the published agenda of each public meeting of a City Council or Board of Supervisors, thus allowing citizens the opportunity to speak prior to HRPDC and MPO votes. Require all elected representatives of each City Council and Board of Supervisors to publicly vote on each regional issue forwarded by the HRPDC and MPO to their governing body for their deliberation and a vote.   This new process shall result in a directed vote from each City Council or Board of Supervisors. Each jurisdiction shall appoint a single representative to the HRPDC and MPO. This representative shall vote during HRPDC and MPO meetings as directed by his or her local governing body. Each HRPDC or MPO representative’s vote shall be weighted based on the population of the locality represented. This voting process will represent an improvement over the current inequitable HRPDC and MPO voting structures.   The HRPDC and MPO still shall continue to meet and act as structured forums for discussing regional issues. However, with these changes implemented, these two organizations shall be directed by a majority vote of each local member municipality.   The HRT Executive Director and the HRPDC Executive Director shall no longer have voting privileges, nor shall they be granted any other special privileges not granted to all citizens or taxpayers of our region.  (City Managers and County Administrators do not vote at their council or supervisor meetings. They are not elected representatives, therefore, not accountable to the voters.)   General Assembly members whose constituents live within the region shall be required to attend the HRPDC/MPO monthly meetings. They will be empowered to speak on any issue and to place issues on the agenda. Bu they shall not be empowered to vote, on the grounds that their constituencies are already represented by the commissioners.   Problem: The HRPDC (1), originally designed as a planning and research resource, now appears to function as an unaccountable and closed-door, regional government. As a result, there is a significant public mistrust of regional entities within Hampton Roads. (To read more about this, please visit the Daily Press website here.)   During the regularly scheduled HRPDC monthly “public meetings”, citizens are not permitted to sign up and to speak on agenda items. These so-called "public" HRDPC monthly meetings are not held at a time when most of the working "public" can easily attend them. They are held at 10:30 a.m. during the workweek.   These so-called “public” meetings are not broadcast on local public access television (Cox Cable channels 46, 47, or 48) or Cox Cable channel 11. Thus residents, taxpayers, and voters of our region cannot easily observe what transpires -- unless they are willing and able to take time off from their jobs to drive to the HRPDC “Regional Building” in Chesapeake. By contrast, the time scheduled for these meeting poses no obstacle to the many special interests groups that frequent the meetings. Many special interests attendees are “on the clock", paid by their employers to attend. Some regular attendees are business owners who appear to have a vested business interest in the government contracts or government bonds that may be issued.    Due to the current structure of the HRPDC, unelected individuals are allowed to vote on critical public policy issues such as taxation, debt and eminent domain. Unelected government career bureaucrats voted on such issues as November 2002's pivotal, watershed event: the regional sales tax referendum. They also voted on the referendum’s follow-on repackaging, the reincarnation of Senate Bill 668 (the HRPDC 2026 Regional Transportation Plan).      During HRDPC and MPO deliberations, many critical public issues relating to taxes are considered, or more importantly, removed from future consideration by the HRPDC and MPO voting members. For example, funding options for as much as $17 billion dollars worth of regional “transportation projects” were eliminated in 2001 by the HRPDC, the CAO-staffed Transportation Technical Committee (TTC), and the MPO. One option, a state-wide gas tax increase, was deleted before the public had an opportunity for any meaningful participation in the HRPDC and MPO deliberations and decision-making process. The 2026 regional transportation projects, if constructed, will displace hundreds of local property owners and incur billions of dollars of "regional debt," consisting of bonds sold to fund proposed transportation projects. These are are critical decisions -- the public has a vital interest in them.   The Daily Press reported in 2003 that unelected government bureaucrats, city managers and county administrators, have met in secret to discuss the people's business. The HRPDC and MPO use of our region’s Chief Administrative Officers (CAOs) in an attempt to circumvent the Freedom Of Information Act and to conduct deliberations behind closed and locked doors - is a blatant violation of the principles of open and transparent government. Such behavior reveals arrogance and disdain for the taxpayers that pay the HRPDC salaries.   Mr. Arthur Collins, HRPDC Executive Director and Secretary of the HRPDC, proclaimed to a Daily Press reporter that the taxpayer funded "Regional Building" is his building. He claimed that he pays for it. (2) This imperialist attitude underscores the problem with our region’s current leadership and the unaccountable and out-of-control nature of the regional entities. Such behavior from a servant of the people is an embarrassment and a disgrace to our region.   Constructive change leading to a more open and transparent regional government is obviously needed.   As citizens of Tidewater, we got along quite nicely for quite a long time without having a regional government. We do not need one now. Many citizens who oppose the misuse of the HRPDC and MPO also agree that many issues before the HRPDC benefit from being considered in a regional context. Many agree that our region’s transportation network is one of them. But they also agree that creating another layer of unaccountable regional government is NOT the best solution.   The Solution   These measures, if enacted, would restore a measure of transparency and accountability to regional government. Prior to any HRPDC or MPO vote, all issues of a regional nature shall be brought before each city council or board of supervisors in each of our 16 municipalities and deliberated on by each municipality’s government body of elected officials. There shall be a recorded vote detailing who voted yea or nay. The citizens in each municipality shall have a right to address all regional issues the same way as they can address their local government issues. They shall be allowed to sign up to speak at their city council or board of supervisors public meeting. All regional issues requiring an HRPDC or MPO vote shall be placed on the local governing body’s agenda prior to a vote by the HRPDC or MPO.    Each regional issue shall require a vote of a quorum of the local government body of elected representatives (i.e., City Council or Board of Supervisors). Following this new process, elected representatives shall now be “on record” regarding their position on regional issues such as raising regional taxes/fees, or creating regional formulas for “revenue sharing.” Following this new process, the outcome of each HRPDC/MPO representative’s votes shall be required to be cast based on the results of a majority vote by their City Council or Board of Supervisors. Each HRPDC locality shall have only one voting member (commissioner). Each HRPDC and MPO vote shall be weighted based on population. All member localities will receive a minimum of one vote and shall receive an additional vote for every 25,000 residents. (See Appendix A.) Non-elected individuals cannot vote or be designated as an alternate. One representative from each member locality shall be present at each monthly HRPDC/MPO meeting to establish a quorum. Every citizen in every regional locality deserves to be represented at each meeting. There is an adequate pool of government elected officials available to ensure that someone from each City Council or Board of Supervisors can be found to support one meeting a month. With the exceptions of a motion to adjourn, a motion to adopt the minutes as read, or to accept the consent agenda, all other votes of the new, smaller 16-voting member HRPDC (and it’s combined “MPO”) shall be required to be roll call votes and shall be simultaneously conducted using a real-time electronic voting and display system. This electronic voting system shall be similar to the system used the City Of Virginia Beach when its City Council conducts its voting. This change will end the improper practice by some members of the HRPDC/MPO of injecting "mini speeches" into the roll-call voting process in violation of Roberts Rules of Order.   It has been observed that the Chairman of the HRPDC has failed to enforce Robert’s Rules of Order and has allows this non-compliant practice to proceed, unabated. From a parliamentary point of view, this is simply wrong. Implementing this simple change (requiring electronic roll call vote voting) will place each vote on the public record and improve the accountability of the HRPDC/MPO voting representatives to their constituency. As reported by the local media, the way HRPDC/MPO “votes” are most often conducted today, the “real” discussions are conducted in private before the “public meeting”. It has been observed that during the public ‘rubber stamping session’, the Chairman calls for an, “All in favor say ‘Aye’”. Some number of HRPDC commissioners murmur “Aye”, and the Chairman quickly announces that the motion carried, without calling for the “Nays”. The public can only watch. This voting “process”, while technically “legal” from a Parliamentary point of view, is a disservice to the taxpayers and to the voters of our region. This HRPDC/MPO practice fails to record, for the public record, exactly how each locality’s representatives have voted, or if anyone has objected to the motion. This practice appears designed to hide the truth about the lack of consensus on HRPDC and MPO votes. This is accomplished by frequently failing to record opposition to a motion. Thus the HRPDC and MPO often never record what the actual vote was - nor how each representative actually voted. In addition, implementing the proposed new method of one representative voting for each member municipality and each vote having a population-based “weighted” value, a roll call vote shall be required in order to calculate if the motion actually passed or failed. The software used to electronic record and display the votes during the meeting can be inexpensively modified to automatically tally the “total numbers of votes” for each voting commissioner and then display the total “votes” along side each “Yea”, or “Nay” vote of each voting member. The vote totals for the calculated weighted “Yeas” and “Nays” shall be displayed at the bottom of the electronic device displaying the results of each vote to the public.   The HRPDC website and minutes should be required to record the results of all HRPDC and MPO votes and how each representative actually cast their vote. The General Assembly members who have constituents living within the region shall be required to attend each HRPDC/MPO monthly meeting. They shall be empowered to speak on any issue, or to place issues on the agenda. They are not empowered to vote, as their constituents are already represented. This new requirement for public service represents only one meeting per month. These meetings rarely run longer than an hour or two. One would hope that our General Assembly representatives could support this new requirement, which would help local and regional officials avoid drafting plans that are not adequately supported by their General Assembly representatives. Result? Better decisions. Why do this?   By reducing the number of HRPDC voting members down to 16 from 45, these changes should expedite HRPDC deliberations.   The proposed requirement for a recorded roll call vote would increase accountability to the voters. It also would create a clear public record of all “Yeas” and “Nays”, which is not always done. Greater accountability would help rebuild public trust.   Bringing General Assembly members into the regional deliberation process should result in better solutions and expedite action at the state level. Such a provision also would create a closer working relationship between the state and the local governments.   Each city or county HRPDC/MPO representative would have a weighted vote based on the population of their city or country. Today Norfolk has 5 votes and Virginia Beach, with nearly twice as many residents, only has seven votes. This is simply wrong. It is unequal representation.   Currently, the non-elected executive director of HRT has a vote on the MPO. Why? Taxpayers pay the HRT staff to work for them. HRT’s executive director should not have a vote in regard how much taxpayers fund HRT. HRT is a service provider. The same is true for the HRPDC and their Executive Director. The HRPDC is a taxpayer-funded service provider. The HRPDC executive director should not be voting on the HRPDC or MPO.   These proposed changes would enable our region to use our existing local governments to make decisions regarding regional issues. The HRPDC/MPO forums still could meet, discuss, and vote on regional issues.   However, the elected representatives voting on the HRPDC and MPO would represent the interests of their constituencies. Requiring them to cast their vote based on a majority vote of their city council or board of supervisors would make regional decision makers more accountable to voters and taxpayers. This provision also would end the current HRPDC and MPO practice allowing non-elected government employees from voting.   This plan would be far more convenient for the public than current arrangements. Citizens would have to travel only to their existing city council or board of supervisor meeting location instead of driving a greater distance, during the work day, to attend a one hour, “rubber stamping” meeting held at the HRPDC/MPO regional building. Many local governments meet in the evening and therefore their meeting times are more convenient to the working public. In addition, citizens wishing to attend both their city council meeting (to participate in local government issues) and also wishing to speak on “regional issues” need only go to one meeting, not two. This reduces the number of meetings active citizens would have to attend.   These simple changes would offer an easier process for citizens to have their voices heard on regional issues. They would allow greater public and local government deliberations of critical regional issues, thus improving the over all decision-making process and hopefully arriving at better and more workable regional solutions. Further, they would give citizens an opportunity to provide input before the HRPDC and MPO vote on regional issues - not just “comment” on HRPDC/MPO decisions, after the fact.   For those cities in our region that broadcast their government meetings on Cable TV or offer streaming video on their city websites, these proposed changes would give citizens easy access to unedited information regarding regional issues. Under the changes outlined in this white paper, all “regional issues” would be required to be discussed and voted on by each local city government.     Other than the modest cost of the new electronic voting system for the HRPDC/MPO votes, these simple changes would cost the taxpayers nothing - yet they would continue to achieve the same stated goals of the HRPDC/MPO. These changes would maintain a regional forum where representatives of local governments could come together at one table and openly discuss regional challenges and proposed solutions. At the same time, these changes result in a greater collaboration between our local government representatives and our region’s members of the General Assembly. This improved working relationship should result in better government at both the local and state levels.   -- February 20, 2007     Footnotes   1. HRPDC is a 45-member body consisting entirely of appointed regional decision-makers. Please visit its website  to learn more about the organization and its ‘federal sister organization’, the Hampton Roads Metropolitan Planning Organization, which is responsible for transportation planning in the region. Currently the MPO consists of representatives from local communities, public transportation agencies, the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission. In compliance with federal regulations, the MPO has produced a long-range plan to ensure an efficient, intermodal transportation system for the future.      2. Excerpt of Terry Scanlon’s June 19, 2001, Daily Press article:   In a lower-profile regional meeting in Chesapeake last month, a staff person and the chairman of a little-known advisory group not only refused to let a reporter into a meeting but also refused to let the panel hear the appeal.   This is my building. I pay for it," said Art Collins, the staff person for the group who is also the executive director of the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission. "If you want to sue me, sue me."   The group - known as the Chief Administrative Officers - went on to discuss whether tolls should be put back on the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel and whether the gas tax should be raised to pay for new roads.   The group does not have authority to do either, but attending the meeting were about half of the members of the panel that would ultimately write a federally mandated regional transportation plan. Although the plan does not ensure which highways will be built in the next two decades, it does outline the limits of what can be done. Anything not in the plan doesn't get built.   Members of the CAO - the 16 city managers and county administrators in Hampton Roads - say the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to them because they're not a public body. They portray themselves as a gathering of staff getting together informally to discuss matters of interest across city borders. But all 16 of them - more than the threshold for a public meeting, which is three - are members of the 44-person Hampton Roads Planning District Commission.   For the officials who thumb their noses at Virginia's Freedom of Information Act, there is little repercussion.   The state's mediator for FOIA disputes, Maria J.K. Everett of the Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council, said the meeting should have been open. But her opinions are not legally binding.   Appendix A   The current voting structure of the HRPDC. Population and demographic data based on the 2000 census data. This data was extracted from the HRPDC website. To be equitable, the number of VOTES each locality has should match the number of their percentage of the region’s population. Thus Chesapeake should have 12.6 percent of the votes while Portsmouth would have 6.4 percent of the votes.   Today Chesapeake and Portsmouth have the same number of votes (3) yet Chesapeake has twice as many residents as Portsmouth . This inequity needs to be corrected.   As much as possible, the “% Rep” and the ”% Pop” should be the same.   HRPDC Regional Government Representation Municipality Population Votes % Pop % Rep Chesapeake 199,184 3 12.6 6.8 Franklin 8,346 2 0.5 4.5 Gloucester 34,780 2 2.2 4.5 Hampton 146,437 3 9.3 6.8 Isle of Wight 29,728 2 1.9 4.5 James City County 48,102 2 3.1 4.5 Nweport News 180,150 3 11.4 6.8 Norfolk 234,403 5 14.9 11.4 Poquoson 11,566 2 0.7 4.5 Portsmouth 100,565 3 6.4 6.8 Southampton 17,482 2 1.1 4.5 Suffolk 63,677 2 4.0 4.5 Surry 6,829 2 0.4 4.5 Virginia Beach 425,257 6 27.8 13.6 Williamsburg 11,998 2 0.8 4.5 York County 56,297 2 3.6 4.5 HRPDC Exec. Dir. 1 1 0.0 2.3 Hampton Roads 1,574,802 44 100.0 100 Note: The data for this table was compiled in the spring of 2003 before the number of Virginia Beach representatives was increased to seven.