Recent coverage of Lynchburg City Council has leaned heavily on a narrative of “chaos” and “personal infighting” following the expansion of a Republican majority. That framing is tidy, but it is wrong. What unfolded over the past year was not driven by personal grudges. It was driven by fundamental disagreements over policy, procedure and the proper role of elected officials versus unelected staff.
Those distinctions matter — because misunderstanding them obscures what voters actually asked for.
The 2024 election was not a mandate for quiet consensus. It was a mandate for reform: fiscal restraint, transparency, accountability and a council willing to question long-standing assumptions. When a governing body transitions from deference to oversight, tension is not a sign of failure. It is often a sign of change.
These were institutional disputes, not personal ones
Contrary to how events have been portrayed, disagreements on council were never about personality. They were about whether council would function as an independent legislative body or as a rubber stamp for staff recommendations; whether the mayor would serve as a neutral facilitator or an active gatekeeper; and whether rules would be applied consistently, regardless of who benefited.
Those are not personal matters. They are structural ones.
Most substantive policy votes reflect that reality. The overwhelming majority passed by wide margins — often 6–1, and frequently unanimously. That record alone undercuts the idea that council was paralyzed by dysfunction. Where friction arose, it was almost always over process, not outcomes.
Support for staff is not the same as shielding them
When concerns were raised about the mayor’s leadership, they were not rooted in opposition to supporting city staff. Supporting staff is appropriate. Shielding staff from accountability is not.
Council frequently commended city employees publicly when their work was exemplary. At the same time, members did not hesitate to address concerns privately when performance fell short of expectations or when council direction was not carried out. Oversight is not hostility. It is a core responsibility of elected officials. When legitimate concerns are dismissed or ignored, tension follows naturally.
A misleading portrait of the city attorney’s role
One of the most misleading assertions in recent coverage is the portrayal of the city attorney as a neutral peacemaker between feuding councilmembers. That characterization does not align with the experience of those who served on the dais or closely followed proceedings.
Procedural confusion often originated not from councilmembers, but from inconsistent application of rules and, at times, legal advice that conflicted with state law. When the official charged with serving as both legal counsel and procedural referee fails to provide clear, consistent guidance, disorder is not prevented — it is created.
The consequences were not abstract. In one especially serious instance, incorrect legal guidance from the city attorney and other staff regarding city tax policy contributed to decisions that ultimately cost Lynchburg taxpayers millions of dollars in higher real estate taxes. That outcome alone warrants scrutiny. Accountability does not create chaos. Misinformation does.
Correcting the record on the budget
Another point where the narrative diverges sharply from the factual record involves the city budget. Council did not vote to “cut programs,” as has been claimed.
Council was compelled to adopt an $0.84 real estate tax rate — a rate that represented a significant tax increase for homeowners and generated more revenue than the city had ever collected. Despite that increase, the city manager’s proposed budget included cuts to valued community programs, including the Art Studio at Jackson Heights, the Senior Cener and the downtown library branch.
Council responded quickly by restoring funding for all of those programs. That sequence matters. Characterizing council as cutting services reverses the actual chronology and misrepresents who acted to protect them and the individual who cut them. Wynter Benda.
Fairness to businesses means fairness to all
Context also matters in discussions involving local business owners. One prominent letter circulated to council omitted at least one councilmember entirely from its distribution list. That selective communication undermined transparency from the outset.
When Councilman Misjuns, who had been omitted, raised questions about the use of public property and city-provided utilities to support a private business activity, they were not personal attacks. They were appropriate inquiries about fairness. If certain businesses are permitted to leverage public assets for private financial benefit, other businesses downtown are right to ask whether rules are being applied fairly and consistently. Ensuring a level playing field is not hostility toward business — it is basic stewardship of public assets. Taxpayers paid for that land and electricity.
Free speech is not a procedural inconvenience
Tension has persisted where efforts have been made to censure, silence or chill the lawful speech of elected officials. That should concern everyone. The ability of elected representatives to speak freely, debate openly and express sincerely held views is not a procedural nuisance. It is a constitutional principle and a cornerstone of representative government.
I welcome robust debate. Healthy disagreement improves policy and strengthens transparency. What undermines governance is not open expression, but attempts to suppress it. One of my colleagues even expressed her desire in a meeting to silence Mr. Misjuns. That is suppression of free speech and an unconstitutional wish.
Looking forward
I have corrected the record not out of animus, but out of a commitment to truth, transparency and accountability. I genuinely seek civility on city council, and there has been some progress. Still, civility cannot be achieved through speech suppression or procedural gamesmanship. It comes from fair rules, consistent application and respect for the roles voters entrusted to their representatives. And minutes that truthfully record our actions.
Lynchburg will soon have the opportunity to make important choices about its future leadership. My hope is that citizens have been paying close attention — not to caricatures of “chaos,” but to where dysfunction truly originates and who has worked consistently to restore balance, accountability and open governance. And fiscal accountability.
Healthy debate is not disorder. Accountability is not chaos. And transparency — even when uncomfortable — remains the foundation of good government.
Curt Diemer is vice mayor of Lynchburg.