Are you kidding?
You must have missed the list of groups that were scheduled to speak before th HRC. Here it is. How is it that a group of speakers who are all against this resolution going to help the HRC come to a credible recommendation? I don’t think they can. OOPPS, There are three out of 15 that are for this resolution. So I guess that makes it okay.

Puerto Rican Legal Education and Defense Fund
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF)
ACLU
NAACP
Virginia Muslim Action Committee
Washington Lawyers Conference
Central American Resource Center
Help Save Manassas
Virginia Council on Human Rights
Council on American Islamic Relations
Virginia Human Rights Commission
Muslim Association of Virginia
FAIR
Woodbridge Workers Committee

From my lowly place in society over in Sudley, I will clarify:

Your post is without merit, thus my comments.

Clear enough now?

Dolph

That explains a lot!

Sometimes you truly are an idiot. If your supposition were true then no board actions could be reasonably challenged. One need look no further than LoCo for impact of hastily implemented ordinance changes. Regardless where you stand on the issue, the downzoning flap that ended up with the ordinance being struck down by the courts came largely as a result of the Board not crossing all its “t”s and dotting all its “i”s. All I’m saying is that additional consideration by a review board lends credibility to any assertion that a particular ordinance was thoroughly considered. The latitude lies inwhat the Board does with information it considers, not with the process.

BTW, Mr. Thomas, as the commission has the authority to hold forums other than “public hearings” (and doesn’t appear to have any notification requirements), I wouldn’t hang my hat on the legal requirements attendant to a public hearing. (See earlier post about “overstating your case”)

The Board of County Supervisors is an elected body which passes legislation. Their decisions are entirely arbitrary and capricious almost by definition.

You are confusing the legislative process with an administrative or judicial process where “arbitrary and capricious” decisions are wrong.

Arbitrary: subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one’s discretion.

Capricious: Characterized by or subject to whim; impulsive and unpredictable.

Sure sounds like the way legislative bodies consistently behave to me.

Yes. The BCOS are elected. The Staff are hired. The HRC is appointed. It looks like the HRC is either moving forward on its own, at the request of a special interest group, or at the behest of someone on the County Staff. HSM is trying to determine which, and has filed a FOIA. As we have seen in other engagements, sometimes County and City Staffs resist the will of the electeds. Othertimes, appointed boards and commissions overstep their authority. As far as we can tell, the BCOS was not notified by the HRC that they planned to conduct hearings, nor did it direct the County Exec to request that hearings be held. The HRC, it appears, did not follow the rules regarding public hearings. Greg, and HSM will get to the bottom of this.

As to bringing in the State Police, as you have suggested, I am not sure that this could be defined as a criminal matter. I don’t think anyone will go to jail over this. However, if determined that a County employee was acting to undermine the will of the BCOS, they could be disciplined. If it’s determined that the HRC has acted improperly, they could be disbanded and reconstituted. Either way, their rulings on something like this, are non-binding.

One last thing to consider, as with most issues that involve potentially objectional ordinances or implementations, it is best if going to court if you can demonstrate that the process was vetted to the greatest degree possible. The commission can write a report and the Board do with it what it pleases, that a report exists may prove crucial in a determination regarding any claim that the Board’s actions were arbitrary or capricious.

I would normally attribute a comment like this, to James Young. But to his credit, James always posts his name, as far as I know.

And I was commenting on the merits of you argument. Since your arguments are without merit, they rate a sarcastic response. I think Greg was pretty clear in his complaint:

The HRC does not have the authority to conduct hearings on its own, unless requested to do so by the PWC government, or at the request of an actual complaintant. This complaint must be filed according to a clearly defined process. Hearings are “PUBLIC” and must follow the same requirements for public notice as any “PUBLIC” hearing held by a PWC entity. Greg has requested:

HRC demonstrate by what authority they are holding the hearings.

HRC demonstrate that they have an actual complaintant, wronged in the APPLICATION OF THE LAW, OR,

that HRC demonstrate that they are holding these hearings at the request of someone from the PWC GOV who has the authority to request them. Mexicanos Sin Fronteras does not meet either of these criteria.

HRC gave adequate public notice, of a PUBLIC HEARING! Telling a reporter doesn’t fulfill this requirement.

It is contingent upon the HRC to prove that they are following the law, and not for Greg to have to prove that they aren’t.

There, simple enough for YOU ANONYMOUS?

I don’t know ANONYMOUS, I have no problem posting under my own name…what’s YOUR problem and what is it that YOU have to hide.

I think you read Anon’s comments perfectly. I think his or her logic goes a little like this:

Some people are racist, therefore;

Some people in PWC are racist, therefore;

Some of the PWC PD and PWC GOV employees are racist, therefore;

The application of the ordinance will be racist, and the HRC has grounds to preemptively assume that there will be complaints, and therefore;

The HRC must hold hearings.

What you are stating here, if I read it correctly, is that because people are posting remarks on a public blog that might not be favorable to hispanics, the HRC of Pr. Wm County should be holding hearings?

This sounds a little too much like the ‘thought police’ to me. I post here, quite a bit, as a matter of fact. However, I am not a member of HSM. A public blog, is…well…public. I do not believe HSM can be held accountable for the contributions of those who post here.

The conundrum seems to be that the BOS created the HRC. Now the HRC is investigating the actions of the BOS.

This situation is sounding more and more like the fox guarding the hen house.

You are wrong. The HRC is only empowered to study the “application” of laws or ordinances which have caused discrimination, not those which MAY lead to discrimination. Also, the comments of some on this or any blog are not a justification. The only justification is if someone is actually harmed by the resolution, by an agent of the County government. Period.