Lynchburg City Council will not take position on National Defense act

Fearful of opening a Pandora’s Box, Lynchburg City Council will not take a position on the controversial 2012 National Defense Authorization Act — which among other things allows the military to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism without trial.

While several council members condemned the measure, they said council had no business putting its oar into federal issues.

“From my perspective, this is a very dangerous act as Congress has enacted it,” Councilman Randy Nelson said. “However, it is not an issue for us.”

Last month, council was approached by a Liberty University student group and asked to pass a resolution and ordinance opposing the defense act.

On Tuesday, at council’s request, City Attorney Walter Erwin briefed them on the issue and any action they could take.

Erwin said the federal bill did not appear to have any impact on city agencies. He added it wouldn’t be permissible for council to pass an ordinance contradicting a federal law.

Passing a resolution protesting the bill could be done, Erwin said, although it would be inconsistent with council’s internal rules of procedure as it does not deal with a local matter.

Councilman Jeff Helgeson proposed passing a resolution, not in opposition to the act, but in support of a General Assembly bill addressing the issue.

House Bill 1160, introduced by Del. Robert G. Marshall, would prohibit government employees from aiding the military in investigating, prosecuting or detaining U.S. citizens in violation of the federal and state constitutions.

The bill passed the House of Delegates 96-4 on the same day as council’s meeting.

Helgeson asked council to pass a resolution supporting Del. Marshall’s bill and asking the city’s lobbyist in Richmond to advocate for it.

“I think that’s an easy thing to do,” he said.

But other council members objected and said they did not want to suspend council’s rules of procedures, required to pass such a resolution.

“I think it’s very, very bad precedent,” said Councilman Michael Gillette, reiterating his earlier concerns about opening the floodgates to requests for resolutions on foreign wars, abortion, doctor-assisted suicide and any number of issues council has no jurisdiction over.

Helgeson said his suggestion differed from vague “philosophical” resolutions because it dealt with a matter actively before the General Assembly.

Gillette shot back by noting he had not tried to get council involved when the same-sex marriage amendment was pending in Richmond. Gillette and Helgeson are on opposite sides of the gay-rights debate — Gillette being pro and Helgeson being opposed — and have clashed over it before.

Helgeson’s proposal Tuesday died due to a lack of support.

Mayor Joan Foster said she had “no appetite” for wading into a federal issue and agreed with concerns it would send council down a slippery slope.

“Things would be coming before us every week,” she said. “I don’t care to get into it.”

Councilman Turner Perrow — who had asked for more information when the issue was first raised — said after hearing the city attorney’s briefing, he would not support taking any action.

“No. 1, it does not affect us locally,” Perrow said. “And we don’t have any real authority to act on it anyway.”

Vice Mayor Ceasor Johnson stressed they had heard the public comments on the matter.

“I would like it to be noted that we are open to our citizens,” he said. “We heard them and we voiced this out as a council and we’re moving on from here.”

Councilman H. Cary made no comment during the debate.

The next day, Craig Storrs, an LU student who made the request to council, said he was disappointed by the outcome.

“Obviously, I think the city government can do a little bit more,” he said. “… The fact they don’t seem willing to address what seems to be a blatant constitutional violation troubles me.”

Storrs added he was not surprised, given the tone of council’s comments last month.

“I do take comfort in knowing someone is pushing it at the state level,” he said.

Storrs, a member of LU’s College Constitutional Conservative Christian Coalition, said no one notified him or the organization their request was going to be discussed Tuesday.

“That was kind of disappointing,” he said. “I would have been there.”

Council members advised concerned citizens to speak with their representatives in D.C. and Richmond. Some even said they would be doing that themselves.

“I’ll say this on the record for everyone. I think this is an abhorrent aspect of the law,” Gillette said of the controversial provisions. “I don’t know what happened to due process in this country except that we traded it away because we got so frightened by terrorists on 9/ 11.

“I do not like, and I do want to support it. But I think it’s extremely dangerous for City Council to begin wading into issues we have no standing to comment on. This is beyond the city’s business.”