Want to see where the candidates for Lynchburg City Council stand on the issues? You can see their answers to our questionnaire in our Voter Guide. Not from Lynchburg? We have other localities in our Voter Guide, too.
Earlier this week, I was standing in line at the coffee shop in Daleville when the man ahead of me turned around. I’d never met him, but he recognized me — the Cardinal News hat probably helped.
He was a businessman from Lynchburg who was in Botetourt County that day for some meetings. He talked about how much he appreciated Cardinal, and how embarrassed he and others in the Hill City have been by the well-documented drama on the city council.
Later that day I had lunch with a former elected official from a locality on the other side of the state who was passing through. He’d stopped off in Lynchburg along the way west and reported that his friend there was also embarrassed by the city council.
None of these were lines of inquiry I initiated; both these people brought them up unprompted.
I share those stories, as gently as I can, to suggest that somebody in Lynchburg learn the meaning of the word “stop.”
As in, please, can’t you just stop all this drama?
Over the years, decades now, I’ve watched lots of government meetings — local, state, even federal. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a governing body as consumed by petty bickering as the Lynchburg City Council. Well, it seems petty to me — it appears to be quite important to some of those involved in it, which seems part of the problem.
Let’s skip past what’s happened since the current council took office in January 2023 — the split vote for mayor, one council member calling another “the stupidest person on earth,” two council members getting censured (one of them twice). All these council members are in the same political party, by the way. Let’s also skip past all the political drama outside the council — the Lynchburg Republican Party’s executive committee censuring one council member (something the state party says it’s not allowed to do), two council members recruiting a primary challenger to another, and now the Lynchburg Republican Party calling a meeting for the purpose of censuring two members of the council (again, something the state party says it’s not allowed to do).
All that is entertaining in the same way that pro wrestling is entertaining, but it comes with a price. Part of that price comes at the expense of the city’s image and reputation — witness the comments above. I’ve got no stake in how Lynchburg chooses to resolve its political turmoil, something which may (or may not) play out over the next two cycles of city council elections. I don’t live in Lynchburg, so it doesn’t really matter to me what the tax rate is or whether there’s an amphitheater (two of the many issues that council members have fought over) or ultimately even which faction winds up on top. However, as someone who cares about the western part of the state and wants to make sure that the powers-that-be don’t ignore places west of Charlottesville (which is one of the reasons we launched Cardinal News), it pains me that the council in one of our largest cities has become such a source of embarrassment to many of its own residents.
This can’t be good. This isn’t good.
I’d like this part of the state to be known for its great quality of life and the creative ways it’s reinventing local economies after the trauma of seeing longtime industries collapse — not for its dysfunctional governments.
You’ll notice I’ve left out the names of the combatants so far. Part of that is just stylistic simplicity, part of it intentional — we’ve reported all that before and at this point, any mention of certain specific council members produces an almost Pavlovian response from the other side’s adherents.
Can’t Lynchburg just let bygones be bygones? Apparently not.
Let’s just review a few of the things that have transpired in council meetings over the past few weeks.
On Sept. 10, the council held a work session where one of the topics discussed was a proposal to appoint a standing committee to coordinate actions between the council and the council-appointed school board. Eight other localities around the state have similar committees. From afar, this seems a perfectly pedestrian matter that most governing bodies would dispense with, yay or nay, in short order.
In Lynchburg, it became fodder for more political conflict.
In Lynchburg, the mayor appoints committee members. Council member MaryJane Dolan (elected as an independent but often identified as a Democrat) asked whether such an appointment process here might lead to politicization.
That led council member Marty Misjuns (a Republican) to criticize Mayor Stephanie Reed (a fellow Republican): “There are concerns because our current mayor has the absolute worst track record with committee appointments in the history of Lynchburg city mayors — and that’s a fact that the public needs to be reminded of.” He was referring to a political flap when this council first convened in January 2023 and Reed did not appoint some members to committees they wanted to be on.
I can understand a council member being sore about not getting the committee assignment they wanted. I’m sure important work goes on within those committees. However, we’re talking here about a seven-member governing body. A council member who isn’t on a particular committee doesn’t seem quite so distant from the work as, say, a legislator in the General Assembly, where committee assignments are a much bigger deal and a legislator’s stature is often measured by which committees they’re on — the money committee way up here, agriculture way down there unless you represent a farming community. I’ve never known members of city councils or boards of supervisors to attract much attention for their service on this committee as opposed to that committee.
Speaking of the General Assembly: Earlier this year, the speaker of the House — Democrat Don Scott — unexpectedly booted the ranking Republican member off House Appropriations mid-session. We still don’t know exactly why, but there were definitely some politics involved somewhere. How did Del. Barry Knight, R-Virginia Beach, respond to this very public demotion? He issued a statement that I find pretty civil: “Speaker Scott’s decision to remove me from the Appropriations Committee today came as a complete shock. He did not discuss the change with me ahead of time, nor has he reached out to explain his reasoning. My committee assignments may have changed, but my commitment to the people of Virginia Beach remains steadfast, and I will continue to serve my constituents as a strong advocate for our shared values.”
There are lots of other things that Knight could have said, but he didn’t. Life goes on. To my eye, he came out of this looking like he had taken the high road when the on-ramp to the low road was certainly available. Meanwhile in Lynchburg, some council members — you can decide which ones — seem to see that low road, cut across the lanes to get there and then step on the gas.
Another issue that came up in that work session was council pay. In 2019, before most of these members were even on the council, Lynchburg raised the pay for council members. That rate change took effect in 2020, just as the pandemic hit and city finances were thrown akilter. To set a good example during a time of crisis, the council voted not to accept the pay raise. Fast forward to today. The official council rate set by the ordinance is one thing, the amount that council members are paid is lower.
Misjuns wanted council pay raised, making the case that a) there’s a discrepancy between what the law says and what city government is actually doing, and b) candidates for office must pay filing fees based on the higher official rate, not the actual lower level of compensation. Vice Mayor Chris Faraldi opposed the move, saying the council shouldn’t vote to increase its pay.
There certainly seems room here for debate. To me, Misjuns seems right on the law, Faraldi seems right on the politics. Fortunately for me, I don’t have to come up with a fair resolution.
Here’s how the Lynchburg council dealt with it:
Faraldi delivered prepared marks on why he opposed the measure: “A politician should not vote themselves a pay increase. … I just believe it’s wrong. And for nearly two years, I’ve heard so much from this dias about fiscal responsibility, prioritizing the taxpayer, standing to the administration … plenty of platitudes about standing up to bureaucrats and demanding transparency … and consistent attacks for any deviation to an extremely limited political dogma of those in my party.”
Council member Jeff Helgeson interrupted him: “Point of order!”
Faraldi continued: “I’d ask those watching at home: Do you know anyone else getting a 40% increase in this economy?”
Helgeson continued to call “point of order!” and Misjuns joined in.
The mayor ruled that Faraldi could continue. He never named names, but it seemed clear he was referring to Misjuns and Helgeson: “I don’t want to hear any more about how we fight to eliminate bureaucracy or oppose administrative spending when this 40% pay increase to our own salary literally feeds the bureaucracy. … These are highly critical and outspoken admonishments, and they’re unwavering, never-ending, except now, save only when it seems to line our pocket. … No Republican or any member of this body who is worth their salt or has any sense of integrity should support this measure.”
Misjuns responded: “That was probably one of the most impressive pieces of propaganda we’ve heard.” He said that the city wasn’t following its own laws, “but [if] Chris wants to turn this into the next episode of ‘how best to virtue signal by Chris Faraldi,’ by all means, we just got to see it. If you want to know how to virtue signal, just tune in and watch the vice mayor.”
The pay raise issue came up again at this week’s council meeting and took up about 30 minutes. The short version: Dolan was absent, and the council deadlocked 3-3 on whether to raise its pay, with Misjuns, Helgeson and Larry Taylor voting in favor, and Faraldi, Reed and Sterling Wilder voting against. There was then discussion about changing the ordinance to match the current pay.
At that point, Misjuns made a substitute motion: to reduce the mayor’s pay to the level of other council members. “If we’re going to be voting to reduce all of city council’s pay, then we should align the mayor’s pay with all of city council.”
Faraldi countered that while changing the ordinance would reduce the official pay rate, it wouldn’t change what council members are actually paid.
The vote to lower the mayor’s pay was defeated 4-2; with only Helgeson and Misjuns voting in favor.
Then, after some parliamentary wrangling, the question of whether to change the ordinance setting the pay rate was ultimately put off to a future meeting when all council members could be present.
All that was Tuesday. On Wednesday, Misjuns circulated a video that sure looked and felt like a campaign ad: “We need to end the Faraldi spending spree to stop the Faraldi tax hike next year.” At issue is the question of Sandusky Middle School: Faraldi believes money can be found to renovate the building without raising taxes, Misjuns believes otherwise.
Any appropriation is fair game for debate, but the odd thing here is a Republican launching an attack-style campaign ad against a fellow Republican — at a time when that second Republican is up for reelection and faces a Democratic opponent. Given the vitriol in Lynchburg, no one should be surprised by this, but perhaps we’ve all become too accustomed to all this back-and-forth. At one level, this would be as if Sen. Mark Warner, a Democrat, started running an ad that bad-mouthed fellow Sen. Tim Kaine, a fellow Democrat, as someone who can’t be trusted. (For the record, they’re quite chummy; I’m just trying to make a point here.)
Misjuns clearly sees it the other way around. He sent out an email blast that said of Faraldi: “He seems to forget that he is campaigning against Democrat April Watson, and not me.” A video Mijuns posted Thursday criticized Reed alleging that her support for certain candidates constitutes “election interference.” Once again, these are all members of the same party.
Must politics in Lynchburg be so personal? Can’t everyone just take a walk around the block and relax? I see legislators in Richmond — from different parties — get along much better, even on issues where they disagree passionately. Why can’t these council members in Lynchburg?
I realize at this point that each side has a long list of grievances against the other, piled higher and higher each passing week, it seems. Lynchburg voters can ultimately sort out who they feel should get the blame. In the meantime, here’s another price that’s being paid, and it’s not being paid just in Lynchburg: We often wonder why it’s so hard to find good people to offer themselves for public office. These kinds of antics are why.
Another presidential poll in Virginia
I write a weekly political newsletter, West of the Capital, that goes out Friday afternoon. This week I’ll look at:
- The latest presidential polling in Virginia.
- A surprising trend in turnout from the first week of early voting.
- Roanoke Democratic council member isn’t backing one Democratic candidate for council.
- State Sen. Mark Obenshain, R-Rockingham County, criticizes Sentara for closing pediatric center at Harrisonburg hospital; raises Certificate of Public Need questions.
- Meet the candidate who our readers are searching for most in our Voter Guide.
You can sign up for West of the Capital or any of our free newsletters below: