COURTHOUSE — A divided School Board finally took a position about what its fate should be under the new 10-district local voting system that is reshaping the political landscape in Virginia Beach.
Amid discussions in Richmond about a bill that might have expanded the number of members of the board temporarily, a majority on the board on Tuesday, Feb. 1, voted in favor of continuing to keep its membership at 11 people and to continue to mirror the district structure and election schedule of the City Council as the law requires.
Some uncertainty remains about the new system because the city is appealing the ruling that led to it. Additionally, it impacts current members of the School Board more drastically than it does members of the council. Several district residency complications now exist because the School Board was not a party in the Holloway v. Virginia Beach suit, and the new districts were drawn without considering where members of the board live while City Council members were considered.
The majority also voted to support having one at-large member, likely on the 2024 ballot, as its 11th seat under the new 10-district system. On the council, the mayor is still directly elected citywide as the City Council’s 11th member. Voters in Virginia Beach do not directly elect a School Board chairperson. The position is selected by the board from among its own membership.
During an interview on Thursday, Feb. 10, School Board Chairperson Carolyn Rye said there is still a need to understand what next steps are, but the resolution signals the intent of the body. “That speaks to where the majority of the board stands,” Rye said.
During the Tuesday, Feb. 1, meeting, four members of the board abstained from the vote after raising concerns of the absence of public participation in the decision, which was held during a special meeting that did not include public comment. Lengthy discussion and the vote on the resolution followed a closed session in which the board met with outside council hired to discuss legal issues related to the voting system changes.
Those abstaining were School Board Members Jen Franklin, Laura Hughes, Vicky Manning and Carolyn Weems. Manning, in an email prior to the meeting, wrote that the board should not vote without public understanding, participation and feedback.
Manning was elected to an at-large seat on the board, and her current term is scheduled to end in 2024. She now resides within the new District 9 with three other board members, including Hughes and Weems.
Hughes was among those who echoed the concern about transparency. She said it felt as though the board was making an “end run around the public.”
Weems argued that “we have lied to the public” if the body took action that day before discussing it publicly and getting feedback from citizens.
“In every meeting, I have expressed my concerns that none of the discussions have taken place in open session,” Manning said. “Our community has no idea what we’re talking about. They don’t know the different options. They don’t know anything that’s going on. … I don’t think it’s the place of the School Board as a body to be advocating for something that could impact us individually in November on the ballot.”
Though others asked whether action might be delayed, a majority voted to take a position due, in part, to the schedule of the General Assembly session. Ultimately, however, legislation meant to clarify the impacts of a judicial decision upon elected offices did not advance in Richmond after its sponsor, state Del. Glenn Davis, R-84th District, asked for it to be pulled this past week.
Lannetti said the state code says elected local officials complete terms to which they were elected regardless of their residency or changes due to redistricting. In addition to the city charter, the code says School Board member elections coincide with council elections and are elected at the same time and for the same term as council members.
“We believe that the city is presuming that the School Board will follow the same election cycle that was at least mentioned in its Jan. 11 presentation for the public,” she said, referring to a public briefing before the City Council, “although we all understand there is some ambiguity right now in the law.”
The attorney said the School Board is expected to follow the process for the council, while the changes have meant different things for each body.
“We have some districts that do not currently have a sitting School Board member in them,” she said, “and some where you have multiple School Board members in them. We firmly believe that those of you who have 2024 terms remain on the board.”
Part of the discussion involved whether someone who now lives within a new district represents that district rather than the one to which they initially were elected. That is not necessarily the case, she said. The court ruling essentially means the system will be phased into place over the next two elections, according to the presentation.
A goal of having a bill in Richmond was to clear up a gap in the law about what happens when a court order is what ends up changing districts. The law covers instances such as redistricting, and language in a version of the bill in Richmond addressed court rulings.
“There is a gap as to what happens when there is a court order,” Lannetti said.
Manning asked why not elect someone to represent a new district in which nobody lives sooner? Effectively, the 2024 districts do not exist until the 2024 election, the attorney said, though the law may be unclear.
School Board Member Jessica Owens, who was elected to represent the Rose Hall District, said that some new districts that do not have someone on the board living within them does not mean people within those districts are not represented. “That person they voted in in that election is still present,” Owens said.
“This board has enough drama with 11 people,” Owens said, noting that increasing the number of board members means more expense for taxpayers, and it could be confusing.
School Board Member Beverly Anderson, who was elected to an at-large seat, said the law says the School Board should match what the City Council does, and she supported passing the resolution – eventually making the motion for the vote.
“When we have to mirror what City Council does,” Anderson said, “it’s important to know what City Council is doing. … We’re not trying to do anything different tonight. We just want to follow the law.”
“I think there’s a case to be made to convey this to the General Assembly sooner rather than later,” Rye said, “so that we can move ahead with filling this gap so we don’t hold up School Board elections and we don’t hold up the community and sitting board members who want to submit their petitions and have them certified.”
The week after the School Board’s vote, Davis removed the bill from consideration. A subcommittee of the House Privileges and Elections Committee on Wednesday, Feb. 9, voted unanimously to strike the bill from its docket at Davis’ request.
“I asked for that to be stricken from the docket because there’s still a lot of uncertainty about what the School Board is looking to do,” Davis said on Wednesday, Feb. 9.
Davis said he had a number of conversations with officials about the effects of the legislation, including with the School Board chairperson. Rye, during an interview, said she discussed the resolution with Davis.
Additionally, Davis said the issue of whether residents of new districts have representation on the board was his concern.
“There’s only one conversation I ever cared about,” Davis said. “And that’s do you balance the voters’ desire of having elected officials represent them until 2024 and ensuring all voters have accountable representation? That is the only thing that matters.”
Some members of the board have said the idea of adding to the body would be chaotic, and citizens have representation while the old districts are phased out over the 2022 and 2024 local election cycles.
“The School Board let Del. Davis know that we intended to follow the city charter and mirror the City Council’s election districts,” Vice Chairperson Kim Melnyk said during an interview on Wednesday, Feb. 9.
Melnyk, who was elected to represent the Princess Anne District and lives within District 2, said the board is in “limbo” waiting to see what happens with City Council districts and awaiting guidance from the registrar.
The city is appealing the decision in the federal lawsuit that led to the new district system. Oral arguments in the appeal are scheduled for March.
© 2022 Pungo Publishing Co., LLC
