|
289
<br />
<br />June 9, 1981
<br />
<br /> I am making this disclosure to comply with the spirit of the Virginia Conflict of Interest
<br />Act; however, pur'suant to Steve's opinion, it is my understanding that I will be allowed to
<br />participate in and vote on the Community Development Plans because they are of general appli-
<br />cation and do not directly relate to the purchase of any property in which I may have an
<br />interest.
<br />
<br /> Thanking you for your attention to this matter and your recording of this disclosure is
<br />appreciated. Signed by Morton V. Whitlow"
<br />
<br />City Attorney's letter
<br />
<br />"Councilman Morton V. Whitlow
<br /> P. O. Box 968
<br /> Portsmouth, Virginia 23705
<br />
<br />Dear Mr. Whitlow:
<br />
<br /> You have requested that the office of the City Attorney render an opini6n as to
<br />whether the Virginia Conflict of Interest Act (2.1-347, et seq., Code of Virginia) disqualifies
<br />you from voting on the Conservation and Redevelopment Plans, or any of them individually, whict
<br />was the subject of a public hearing on May 26, 1981, since you currently own property located
<br />within some of these areas which are slated therein for acquisition by the Portsmouth Redevelop
<br />merit and Housing Authority.
<br />
<br /> It should be immediately noted that said Act does-not prohibit the sale of real pro-
<br />p~rty bet~vee~n a member of the City Council and a political subdivision, such as the Portsmouth
<br />Redevelopment and Housing Authority, where written disclosure of the existence of the interest
<br />of such Council Member is made in advance, both to the City and the separate political subdi-
<br />vision, and that the fact of such material financial interest is set forth as a matter of publJ
<br />record by the governing body of the two agencies or by the administrative heads thereof.
<br />
<br /> The Act further requires that an officer of a governmental agency who has a material
<br />interest in any financial transaction, not of general application, in which his agency is in-
<br />volved, shall not become involved in any way in the transaction. Section 2.1-352 of the Code o
<br />Virginia, as amended, provides in pertinent part, that such officer of the governmental agency
<br />shall disclose such interest to the governing body thereof, gnd disqualify himself from voting
<br />thereon or participating in any consideration thereof in behalf of the agency.
<br />
<br /> Therefore, the determination to be made in this matter is whether a transaction is
<br />"not of general application" where the action of the City Council is to adopt a plan which,
<br />when carried out by a separate political subdivision, may result in the purchase of property
<br />in which you have an interest. The adoption of such plan will affect all property owners withi
<br />the areas involved and is not directly related to the purchase of any property owned by you or
<br />the amount of funds to be paid to yourself or any group of which you may have an interest.
<br />
<br /> Therefore, it is the opinion of the office of the City Attorney that the adoption
<br />of a plan is a matter of general application and you need not disqualify yourself from voting
<br />on the proposed plan as a whole or any individ6at part thereof. Since the adoption of
<br />resolutions approving these plans or amendments thereto is a transaction of general application
<br />youm~fut~ar~&gipation in the process will not result in a violation of the Virginia Conflict
<br />of Interest Act.
<br />
<br /> It is, however, the further opinion of this office that in order to assure compliance wi~
<br />the spirit of said Act, that the disclosure of your interest be made a matter of public record
<br />prior to voting on any resolution involving the areas or locations in which you have property
<br />interests. Signed by Steven Lieberman, City Attorney"
<br />
<br />81-184(c3
<br />
<br />Resolution approving the Redevelopment Plan and the feasibility of relocation
<br />for the Hattonsville Redevelopment Project was presented.
<br />
<br /> Sylvester Brown, 1909 Laigh Road, representing Hattonsville Civic League, spoke in opposi-
<br />tion of the resolution, requesting that the area on Airline Boulevard, bounded by the SCLRR,
<br />between Laigh Road and Ponderosa Street to be rezoned residential, and presented the following
<br />petition:
<br />
<br /> "WE, the undersigned property owners and residents of Hattonsville, do not agree on the
<br />sale of our property and the relocation of the residents out of the Hattonsville area. We are
<br />requesting~of you that a portion of Hattonsville be rezoned that we can rebuild or move our
<br />houses that we may retain our neighborhood unity and to retain a portion of the land that our
<br />slave forefathers carved out.
<br />
<br /> We feel this is a reasonable request; and we hope that the city council will agree.
<br />Signed by Gloria Newton, 3100 Block of Airline Blvd. and others"
<br />
<br /> Joseph R. Dillard, 2605 Ballard Avenue, spoke against being relocated and requested that
<br />the residents of Hattonsville be allowed to remain in that area.
<br />
<br /> Cetha E. Boone, Sr., 2727 Ballard Avenue, representing Hattonsville, spoke in support
<br />of the presentatioh made by Sylvester Brown, and requested that the Hattonsville plight be
<br />reconsidered and restudied.
<br />
<br />Jay Casper, 58 Park View Avenue, requested that the plan be postponed.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|