[Updated 8/28/24 with additional comments by county leaders.]
Arlington County Board members on Aug. 27 fired all current members of their Human Rights Commission, opting for a nuclear-option response in addressing the long-running feud between the two bodies.
The dueling entities had “a fundamentally different set of expectations” about the Human Rights Commission’s responsibilities, County Board member Matt de Ferranti said, necessitating a fresh start.
Any or all of the eight existing members of the commission are welcome to reapply for new appointments, which likely will be made in September, County Board members said.
But those future members need to accept what the commission can and cannot do, and how it can work effectively with county staff and elected leaders without straying outside its jurisdiction, board members said.
“We don’t want people there who think they are doing something else,” County Board Chairman Libby Garvey said. At the same time, she said members who just had been booted are “absolutely welcome” to apply again.
De Ferranti, who serves as the County Board’s liaison to the commission, said he had spoken with all eight members of the somewhat denuded ranks of the commission, explaining the situation.
Whether any of those members apply to be on the newly constituted body remains to be seen. Either way, “I want us to get focused on doing good work,” de Ferranti said.
The 4-1 vote, with board member Susan Cunningham dissenting, was part of a series of actions at an unusual Tuesday-afternoon-in-August meeting called to address the Human Rights Commission’s future. Board members also voted 4-1, with Cunningham again against, to make what elected leaders said largely were clarifying changes to the existing human-rights ordinance.
Cunningham’s dissent on the votes came after she proposed a one-month delay before taking action, but found none of her colleagues supportive.
Those colleagues suggested delay would do more harm than good – whether from a policy perspective or a political one was largely left unsaid.
“Postponing is not the way to go,” Garvey said. “Spending more time will add to the [community] confusion.”
Some members of the Human Rights Commission have been at loggerheads with county leadership over a number of issues, including operation of the county jail, for years. County Board member Maureen Coffey said the changes adopted, and the clean sweep of existing commission members, would provide for a reset of relations.
“There’s a lot of work I would like this commission to take on,” she said, putting an emphasis on fair-housing issues. “I would love to see a supportive, productive commission.”
While some in the community voiced outrage at what they saw as elected officials’ neutering another commission’s independence, the public hearing attracted only two speakers.
But board members apparently got an earful in the days leading up to the meeting.
“A lot of accusations have been thrown at us,” Garvey said.
Representatives of neither the commission itself, nor the Arlington NAACP, which has been critical of the proposal, testified at the hearing. But one resident who did – Michael O’Grady – professed himself “very disturbed” by the proposal and how it came about.
“Nothing in this amendment makes sense to me,” he said, suggesting there could be a more sinister motive behind the action.
“You want to silence our voices,” he said.
