THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, January 18, 1995 TAG: 9501180458
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY TONI WHITT, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: PORTSMOUTH LENGTH: Medium: 98 lines
The City Council, upset that member Cameron C. Pitts talked about its secret dealings with casino operators, threatened to evaluate his performance as a councilman.
Pitts, who went public on the issue last week, said he also was warned that he could be in legal trouble for discussing who was involved in the deal.
Pitts saw himself as a ``knight on a white horse'' when he voiced his concerns about a riverboat gambling proposal that included a group of prominent local investors.
Some of his fellow council members were incensed, saying he violated council protocol and was trying to blow the deal.
Pitts has been against the idea of a floating casino for several months, arguing that a riverboat gambling operation likely would bring crime, corruption and social ills to the city.
The General Assembly is expected to consider riverboat gambling during the current session, and cities throughout Hampton Roads have been scrambling to put deals in place in case the legislature legalizes the floating casinos.
All the Portsmouth council's discussions about casino proposals had been conducted behind closed doors.
Pitts decided to bring the deal into the open after the council began negotiating with one of the five outfits that submitted proposals for riverboat casinos.
Information about the deal already had begun leaking into the community, Pitts said. That information included the identities of some of the eight Portsmouth citizens who had been enlisted as local investors by the council's preferred bidder: Eldorado Hotel and Casino of Reno, Nev.
The day after Pitts went public, the council held an emergency closed-door session, and supporters of the Eldorado proposal warned him there would be repercussions, Pitts said.
``I have definitely been under pressure,'' Pitts said Tuesday. ``They felt like I acted improperly.''
Pitts was warned that what he had done could even have been illegal.
``I was told that I had violated the confidentiality of executive session,'' Pitts said. ``The implication was that I was in deep trouble. It wasn't said, `You're going to jail,' but it was said that I was in trouble because I violated the procurement act.''
State law allows council members to meet secretly about matters such as personnel, lawsuits and sensitive business negotiations.
The closed-meeting exemptions are designed to protect the privacy of city workers and to permit a city to hammer out contracts without revealing its strategy.
But nothing in the law prohibits council members from talking about what happens in executive sessions, said Sharon E. Pandak, past president of the Local Government Attorneys of Virginia.
And nothing in the state procurement act prohibits a council member from naming the companies that submit proposals, she added.
City Attorney Stuart E. Katz said Tuesday that he was unsure whether Pitts had violated any city or state laws. But Katz said Pitts risked no criminal penalties for going public.
Councilman James C. Hawks said Tuesday he didn't want to make a ``big thing out of a little thing.''
But he said he was ``livid'' with Pitts on Friday when the council met in a specially called meeting to discuss the riverboat proposal.
``There have to be certain rules that council abides by in regards to city business,'' Hawks said. ``One of many rules is that executive session matters are kept in confidence. If you fail to do that, then you're undermining the very purpose of the executive session.
``I don't know that it's illegal,'' Hawks said. ``But it might be fair to say there will be some ramifications.''
Hawks declined to discuss anything the council said during its executive session Friday, which was called, in part, to discuss Pitts' performance.
Both Mayor Gloria O. Webb and Vice Mayor Johnny M. Clemons, who have joined Pitts in opposing the riverboat-gambling proposal, said the meeting Friday to evaluate a peer was unprecedented.
``We have never evaluated someone's performance before,'' Webb said. ``That's not to say we can't.''
Clemons said council members didn't have any business evaluating each other. ``You can't hold your peers accountable,'' he said. ``The voters hold them accountable.''
Council members in Virginia are responsible only to the citizens who elect them, said William H. Wood, executive director of the Virginia Institute of Political Leadership at the University of Virginia.
``If he or she disagrees with the other members of council, so what?'' Wood said. ``If someone disagrees and wants to go public, that's OK. Voters can make up their minds if they think it's irresponsible.''
Councilman James T. Martin, a former city attorney, said he was ``not aware'' of any pressure put on Pitts. ``I've not talked to him about it,'' he said.
Councilman P. Ward Robinett declined to comment on Pitts' actions and said he would not talk about any executive session discussions. Councilman Bernard D. Griffin could not be reached for comment. ILLUSTRATION: Photo
Cameron C. Pitts
by CNB