Toward the end of its Tuesday business meeting, the Board of Supervisors voted 5-4 to request state legislation changing the campaign finance laws to prohibit applicants with active land-use applications before the board from contributing to Supervisors' campaign funds.
Chairman Scott K. York (I-At large), who put forth the motion, said he believed that the public deserved more clarity from Supervisors.
"When somebody comes in and files an application, none of us sitting Supervisors can take a contribution from them," he said. "It is simple."
THE REQUEST is part of an ethics passage put together last month by Supervisor Lori Waters (R-Broad Run) and York to try and gain back the trust of Loudoun citizens following a series of stories in the Washington Post calling into question some county officials' close relationship with developers who had active land-use applications with the county.
The package proposed by Waters and York built on the formal Code of Ethics and Standards that was proposed by Supervisor Jim Burton (I-Blue Ridge) in 2005. When Burton proposed the package it was signed by only five members of the board, including Supervisors Sally Kurtz (D-Catoctin), Jim Clem (R-Leesburg), Waters, York and Burton.
At the board's last business meeting, Supervisors voted to approve an amended package, tabling such issues as the taping of the board's closed sessions.
At the Feb. 20 meeting, York said County Attorney John R. Roberts advised the board not to allow the general taping of the board’s executive sessions.
"If at any time a board member feels it is necessary to record a session, then we will do that by request," York said.
SUPERVISORS MICK Staton (R-Sugarland Run), Stephen Snow (R-Dulles), Eugene Delgaudio (R-Sterling) and Clem opposed requesting changes to the campaign finance laws. They stated that restricting a person ability to contribute to a political campaign would violate his or her First Amendment rights, since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that campaign contributions are covered under a person's right to free speech.
"This is a restriction of rights," Staton said. "It goes against everything the founding fathers of this country stood for. This is nothing more than disenfranchisement of citizens and landowners."
Snow called York's motion a witch hunt and compared it to McCarthyism.
"This is serious what these people have put forward here," he said. "All throughout the world when someone disagrees with you, they try to paint you; they try to come up with legal ways of controlling how people are allowed to think."
EVEN BOARD members who supported the motion, admitted that such a resolution would be difficult to get passed by the General Assembly.
"There's nothing wrong with talking with people who have applications on the floor or community groups, but the public needs to have confidence that when those meetings take place that there is openness and transparency,” Waters said.
Burton said that while passing such legislation would be nearly impossible, that the board's request would be an important first step.
"I think this debate is a healthy debate and needs to occur at the local level and needs to be looked at in Richmond very seriously,” he said.
Supervisor Bruce Tulloch (R-Potomac) proposed the only change to York's motion, adding that no special interest groups taking positions on specific applications would be allowed to contribute to a sitting Supervisor's campaign.
"I believe that if someone has an application before this board you shouldn't be taking contributions from them,” he said. "You will always be questioned. For purposes of discussions, taking money from them at that time is, in my opinion, poor taste.”