JCC Supes Butt Heads Over Upcoming Board Vacancy

By Desiree Parker Saturday, November 12, 2011

James City County’s Board of Supervisors members are up in arms again, this time over the impending appointment to fill the seat to be vacated by Supervisor John McGlennon.

McGlennon won Tuesday’s election for the Roberts District, which means he’ll need to leave his current Jamestown District seat before he takes on his new role. Once he does so, it is up to the board to choose an interim member to serve until a special election can be held.

Days after McGlennon’s win, he and fellow Democrat Jim Icenhour sent an email to the press calling for the Board to appoint an Independent. Two Republican board members said in a response email that they feel it is not Republican members but rather Democrats who are more partisan; they also expressed displeasure that Democrats sent their email to the press before sending it to the rest of the board and argued that Democrats had been disseminating “falsehoods” during the recent election. Republicans also said they plan to put forward a "full disclosure" policy for a vote in December, something they said Democrats haven't agreed with in the past.

Icenhour and McGlennon’s email said the board should “seize this opportunity” of the upcoming appointment “to break with the partisanship of the past by appointing someone who is truly independent of both parties.”

“This would require both sides to rely on cooperation to govern, and the public would benefit from an improved working relationship on the board,” the email stated.

“We are willing to engage our fellow board members in an effort to make this happen,” the Democrats wrote. “How the board deals with this issue will set the tone of county government for the next few years. We have a great opportunity – let’s not blow it.”

Board Chairman and Republican Mary Jones and fellow Republican board member Jim Kennedy responded in a lengthy email to the board and select staff that they also want to reach an agreement over the new position, “however, the partisanship you have repeatedly demonstrated over the last four years and during this year’s campaigns have made achieving such an agreement significantly more challenging.”

Some examples of the partisanship listed in the email include Democrats voting record: they have voted together hundreds of times, but have only voted differently four times.

The email also said Democrats have “continued to encourage the dissemination by third parties of demonstrably false information concerning Board members, most frequently through Robert Richardson, who is no longer a county resident but nevertheless continues to attend Board meetings with the expressed purpose of repeating these falsehoods.”

The “falsehoods” include suggesting that Republican campaign financing has been unethical, and that Jones does not live in her district.

“Mr. Richardson’s conduct has repeatedly impugned the integrity of the Board, doing so with your consent and encouragement,” the email said.

Democrats have continued to send out false information about the height of buildings in the EO zone, the email continued. “To continually and repeatedly promulgate this falsehood to the people of James City County to gain partisan advantage was cynical and irresponsible.”

Republicans also took umbrage with campaign literature sent out by McGlennon that said “backroom deals with developers… ruin our community” and suggested that board members and planning commissioners did so. This is a lie, the email said.

Republicans offered their own new idea: they plan to propose a policy that would require board members to fully disclose all interactions with groups and individuals looking to influence the board, including developers, groups such as the J4C, and others (the Planning Commission adopted a similar policy not long ago).

The email said Democrats had previously rejected this idea because it limited their freedom to interact with the public.

Republicans plan to put the idea on the December agenda. They would still have a majority on the board at the time, so the measure will likely pass.

“While we appreciate your attempt to position yourselves as being conciliatory now and looking to set a new tone on the Board, we are not persuaded that either of you is sincere in that pronouncement,” the email reads. “Indeed, your decision to distribute your email to the news media before sending it to us speaks volumes as to its actual intent.”

When asked whether Icenhour or McGlennon had approached her earlier about their thoughts, Jones said, “Prior to reading their email, I spoke with both of them individually earlier today, specifically asking that we not play out the interim appointment process in the media, to which both of them agreed.

“Since I was not aware that when I was discussing this with them they had already sent out an email to the press on the interim appointment process and distributed it to the media before sending it to the Board, my request was already invalid when I was making it.

“Of greater disappointment to me, neither of them mentioned their news release when I was making the request.”