Budget Talk: Unintended Insertion or Intentional Deception? + One Helluva Raise.

RVA 5x5 - April 4, 2025

No algorithms. No content filters. No A.I. — Honest and insightful analysis from Richmond, VA.

Today’s issue has a look at:

• A big strike against transparency in legal matters is hidden away in the budget.

• A one-person city department created two years ago is getting a $90,000 raise.

STORY #1 — Obscuring Legal Opinions
The Mayor introduced the budget to City Council and the public last week but apparently did not have his team read through it or look closely enough at some of the provisions. Several major changes that did not appear in the large 600-page budget binder are tucked away within the 115-page text of the budget ordinance (the Council approves what is in the ordinance, not the binder). The changes are obscured because the former Stoney and current Avula administration seem to believe it is easier to push them through in the budget process for two reasons: it ties their desired changes to the funding of all other city operations and it has a deadline of May 31 so it can not be continued and debated for weeks on end.

The most troubling change includes granting the City Attorney the power to keep private any written opinion or advice to the Mayor or City Council. The other changes would also abolish the need for contracts for non-governmental disbursements to non-profits (in the wake of a scathing audit noting a lack of protocols or procedures for disbursing funds), and a waiving of the residency waiver’s written documentation (the last two of these changes will be covered in the next issue).

When these proposed changes were brought to light by the media this week, Mayor Avula replied, “I did not intend for those items to be included in the budget ordinance.”

Professor Plum did it. In the Library. With the Candlestick.

The Mayor’s budget, which is supposed to direct the administration (with Council’s approval) how to spend the money to fund schools, pave roads, maintain the water plant, conduct inspections for permitting, and so on, instead would remove the requirement that the City Attorney’s legal advice or opinions she gives to the Mayor or Council in the conduct of city business be made public.

Sect. 2-110 of city code says: “When the opinion of the City Attorney is requested on any question of law, the City Attorney shall require the request therefor to be in writing, when practicable, and shall respond in writing as often and as fully as is practicable. A copy of each opinion shall be kept on file in the City Attorney's Office and shall be made available for inspection of any person affected by the opinion or having an interest in the opinion.”

Why that law exists is not entirely clear, but this entire section would be removed from city code if the budget is approved as proposed. According to Samuel Parker at the Times-Dispatch, Mayor Avula said about the proposed change to this year’s budget that “the language was requested by (Drewry) in order to make it abundantly clear that her office can provide confidential advice.”

Since City Attorney Laura Drewry assumed the office two years ago (she’s worked in the office since 2006), she seems to frown upon the notion of following certain sections of city code. While certain opinions on things like personnel matters should remain confidential, others that dictate how public policy is conducted should be public. There are three examples in the last year alone.

Last summer at an Audit Committee meeting, the city’s Inspector General Jim Osuna said he was told by the City Attorney’s office to drop his investigation into tax collection issues in the Department of Finance about refunds and credits due business owners, but the city attorney’s office denied giving those orders, according to the