IN THE NEWS:

1. This week, Governor Glenn Youngkin stood outside the Capitol talking about a proposed sports arena in Alexandria -- speaking about it in the past tense. Leading the charge against the arena proposal is Senate Finance Committee Chairwoman L Louise Lucas, who says the deal is no good for taxpayers.

2. In the era of Zoom, should state agencies and local advisory bodies be able to meet online? Delegate Elizabeth Bennett-Parker has a bill that would expand the number of meetings that happen virtually, but opponents say this would remove an important facet of face-to-face public service.

3. Republicans who want to restrict the right to abortion say they are tired of people being used as props. Democrats say they don't want a bunch of old, white men making decisions about women's healthcare. With government divided, the two sides are canceling out each other this year. But abortion rights are expected to be a major topic of conversation next year, when lawmakers will consider an amendment to the Virginia Constitution.

At the Watercooler:

• Former Richmond FOIA Officer Connie Clay is suing the City of Richmond, alleging she was fired after being blocked from doing her duties

• Breaking down the bills Governor Youngkin has signed, vetoed, and amended

Episode Transcript

Michael Pope  

I'm Michael Pope.

Lauren Burke  

I'm Lauren Burke.

Michael Pope  

And this is Pod Virginia, a podcast that has survived the 2024 General Assembly session. Lauren Burke, Happy sine die.

Lauren Burke  

Yes. Happy sine die. It was a very interesting session, as it always is, but it was exciting.

Michael Pope  

I would say this was the most interesting and fun General Assembly session I have ever been a part of. You had all these new chairmen. The press corps is great to hang out with. The press room is just outstanding. We've got this great fishbowl view of Broad Street and Richmond City Hall. So yeah, overall, it was the best General Assembly session.

Lauren Burke  

A very nice new building and the members love it.

Michael Pope  

All right, let's move on to our first story. Arena fail. 

Glenn Youngkin  

I believe that the Senate is about to make a colossal mistake.

Michael Pope  

That was Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin standing outside the Senate chamber, speaking for the first time in the past tense about a proposed sports arena in Alexandria.

Glenn Youngkin  

There would be no upfront cash, no new taxes, and no impact on our borrowing capacity or credit rating. This would be a public-private partnership in which Virginia wins. It was truly and could truly be a monumental opportunity.

Lauren Burke  

Senate Finance Committee chairwoman L. Louise Lucas, a Democrat from Portsmouth, is opposing the original proposal. 

Louise Lucas  

They have twisted every body part of me to try and get me to change my answer, but it is still hell no.

Lauren Burke  

Lucas says the proposal was not a good deal for taxpayers. 

Louise Lucas  

I read almost everything from everybody who wanted to send something to me. This was not a good deal. So I stood firm on what I believed in my heart to be in the best interest of the Commonwealth, and that was just to say no to the Glenndome. 

Michael Pope  

No to the Glenndome, that was kind of the result at the end of the General Assembly session. The whole thing kind of fell apart after the Senate said not just no to the Glenndome but hell no to the Glenndome. Then, the Governor had his press conference there outside of the Senate chamber. Lauren, I'm curious about your views about the optics of the Governor standing outside the Senate chamber and then looming over him and the distance way up on the portico, looking down on the Governor is Chairwoman Lucas; what did you make of that visual?

Lauren Burke  

It was actually fairly amusing. To me, it was kind of, I guess, a literal example of what had been happening since December 13th. When the deal was announced. I do think that Governor Youngkin felt the arena deal was his own specialized Investment Fund, along with his friend Ted Leonsis, instead of it being a thing that involves other people and the decisions of others. And I think that leader Surovell really hits it on the head in the piece that came out last Sunday regarding him saying that he seems to think this is the Carlyle Group. And it's not the Carlyle Group. It's a representative government that involves group decision-making.

Michael Pope  

The Surovell quote in the Washington Post was, "it was a mistake for him to think everything was non-negotiable ."The Governor was just not willing to negotiate on anything. 

Lauren Burke  

Exactly. They announced this on December 13th in Alexandria; they had not properly, in my view, consulted anybody. Then we find out that March 6th was the first time that there was a sit-down meeting to discuss the key principles of this deal, which were Ted Leonsis and the Senate Finance Chair. I don't understand how the Governor is calling this the most important deal ever for the Commonwealth and the best deal he's ever seen. Well, if that's true, and it's so important, how have the principals not sat down and talked about it? That doesn't make any sense to me. We've seen this before, a moment in politics where people from the business sector come into government, and they think they can just dictate what's going to happen. At his press conference, the Governor kept bringing up no new taxes and 30,000 jobs. No one's asking about new taxes. Louise Lucas was the one who really snatched the wig when she kept bringing up the $1.5 billion that has to be effectively given to this project from the Virginia treasury. So I'm not sure why that gets glossed over in every conversation, but the fact that there is no detailed discussion, at least not in public, I mean, why does it take so long to get details about where the 30,000 jobs come from?

Michael Pope  

Amen to that. Amen to that; I hear you on that one.

Lauren Burke  

And then you ask members of the General Assembly who are in key positions other than Senator Lucas, and they don't have the answers. So, what part of this was dealt with collaboratively?

Michael Pope  

I felt like everybody was kind of living in denial all session in terms of Louise Lucas possibly coming to support the Glenndome, as she was a hard no on day one. And she kept telling people, I'm not changing my mind. I heard her say that dozens of times over the session. And I guess somehow everybody thought magically, she was going to change her mind or something. She started at a hard no; she told everybody she was going to end there. And that's exactly where she ended. 

Lauren Burke  

The framing of this is interesting. Obviously, the Governor's Office wants to make the framing all about Louise Lucas. I actually think the framing should be about everybody else being comfortable with $1.5 billion going into this project for a guy who is worth $3 billion. Why can't Ted Leonsis come up with that money? I think it is a key question that a lot of these lawmakers should be asked, including some of the lawmakers who met with the Governor. They're meeting about this thing, and they're not really answering that question. They're also not answering any questions with regard to the 30,000 jobs. Also, Governor Youngkin got out there and said that this project is going to benefit all of the corners of the Commonwealth of Virginia. What is he talking about? Why would this benefit Hampton Roads or someplace that's far away from Alexandria? With those questions being unanswered, and this aura of, I'm just saying it, so you just have to take my word for it, not only to explain the details, that's problematic.

Michael Pope  

So everybody is under the assumption that this thing is dead. However, I will point out to our listeners that there are still some potential pathways here for this thing. One is that the Governor could call a special session. Even after the veto session, at some point, the dynamics could change, and the Governor could call a special session; that's still a theoretical possibility. Also, the veto session is coming up, and the Governor could make an amendment to the budget or some kind of amendment. So essentially, something could happen in advance of and during the veto session, also known as the reconvened session. However, in order for either of those things to happen, the dynamics would need to change. You would need to bring on Louise Lucas as a supporter. That would actually have to happen before either of those two pathways to victory would happen. And I think after the conversation we just had, it should be obvious to our listeners that this is not going to be happening anytime soon.

Lauren Burke  

You would have to talk to Louise Lucas. Why is it so hard to figure out who the most powerful person in the legislature is right now? I'm not saying that Leader Scott is not powerful, or the lieutenant governor is not powerful, but Louise Lucas and Luke Torian are two people that you'd have to be talking to throughout this entire process. Now, you can see from some of this reporting that Chairman Torian has been spoken to a little bit more, I think. One would think, given all the signals that Chairwoman Lucas sent, that the conversations with her would have started a heck of a lot earlier than they did. And just now, I found out that last week was the first time there was a face-to-face meeting with two principals about this thing. I mean, to me, it's sort of the executive leadership style, I tell you what's going to happen, and you just do it, I announced something on December 13th, 2023, and it's just going to happen. That was the attitude the entire time. And the fact that she could be quoted as saying that they regarded her as invisible. That is shocking. I mean, what part of that makes any sense? The Governor is actually saying this is the greatest deal he's ever come up with in his career, the greatest economic deal he's ever negotiated. That's what he said. So if it's so great, how are you not telling everybody and, of course, negotiating with everybody about how you can make this happen? So, there is a huge problem. And I don't know how it would change, and there's nothing to indicate that it would.

Michael Pope  

There is nothing to indicate anything is going to change in any of these dynamics. And so it does seem like the arena proposal is dead. However, it's still floating out there as a theoretical possibility for either a veto session or a special session. You say the supporters of the arena deal behavior is a mystery for not reaching out to Louise Lucas, not making her part of the conversation, and making her feel like she's invisible. The only possible explanation I can come up with for all of that is that she is the new chairwoman of this committee. This is her inaugural session as this newly empowered member, super-empowered member of the Virginia State Senate, and maybe people just didn't realize what they were dealing with quite yet. 

Lauren Burke  

Well, clearly, the old Virginia ran into the new Virginia on this. What I don't understand, if you look at the list of lobbyists on VPAP, is that some of these people have been around for years, and they know who's in charge and who the chair of finance is. I don't care if the person came in 20 years ago or last year. When Louise Lucas came into the legislature in 1992, there were no women's bathrooms, and there was a dress code that said that women could not wear pants. Everyone understands what the history is here, who is in charge of the legislature, where they are from, and what their issues are. So we knew that the toll relief thing was there. And we knew that the cannabis marketplace was there. We've heard Glenn Youngkin, the Governor, say, again and again, that he's against the cannabis marketplace. And he made a little remark at the press conference about, well, we would have a cannabis shop on every corner. We have a cannabis shop on every corner right now. What is he talking about? We've got the smoke shops on every corner right now. But in other words, he knew what her priorities were. He's already said a trillion times he has no interest in the cannabis marketplace. Okay? So okay, you have now laid the thing in the sand, that you're not gonna go for that. Okay. But do you think that people in power, who you do have to negotiate with whether you like it or not, whether you want to ignore that or not, he does have to negotiate with members of the General Assembly, who, by the way, are in the opposite party. So Leader a Surovells quote is very well taken. I mean, you're dealing with somebody who has spent his life in private equities. There is nothing wrong with private equity, but that is a different style of leadership. 

Michael Pope  

Yeah, a little negotiation might have made this thing work. Still, it doesn't look like the Governor was interested in negotiating. So, the deal is dead for now. However, stay tuned to Pod Virginia because we will be following this in the future. All right, let's move on to our next story. Phoning it in the era of Zoom, should state agencies and local advisory bodies be able to meet online? Delegate Elizabeth Bennett-Parker, a Democrat from Alexandria, has a bill signed by the Governor that is now about to be a law that will expand the number of meetings that can happen virtually.

Elizabeth Bennett Parker  

The current restrictions create barriers to service older adults, people with disabilities, members of the military, parents with childcare responsibilities, business executives, and others whose schedules may not always allow attendance or who may face other barriers.

Lauren Burke  

Megan Rhyne at the Virginia Coalition for Open Government says she's concerned about moving away from face-to-face meetings.

Megan Rhyne  

You lose that physical space by putting more and more people online, calling in from their homes, on vacation, or wherever. And we just feel like that's part of public service is showing up and facing not only your constituents but also your fellow public body members.

Michael Pope  

This bill actually did not receive a lot of attention during the General Assembly session. Still, I wanted to draw the attention of our listeners to it because advocates for open government say this is a mistake. Going in the direction of having everything by Zoom is just not a good idea. And so I want to unpack this a little bit. So the argument that Megan Rhyne is making is that it's better to have people physically in a room, especially just being personal here for a second; as a reporter, I'm always kind of interested in talking to people after the meeting is over with, especially people who have not said much during a meeting. So a lot of times in this kind of context, when you're talking about a state agency or a local advisory body, there might be a vote where everybody but one member votes in favor of it. We actually saw this a lot during the Senate session with John McGuire. John McGuire would vote against something. He'd be the only no-vote. But he doesn't stand up and give a speech about why he's voted no. So the members of the press that will go up to John McGuire, or in the case of what we're talking about here with EBPs bill, you'd go up to somebody at the state agency or go up to somebody at the local advisory body and say, Hey, you were the lone no vote on this. Why did you vote against this? You can't do that if it's a virtual meeting. I mean, you can ring up the person on the phone or maybe send them an email, but they will likely ignore you. If you're face to face in a room, it's actually more difficult to avoid reporters, but it's not impossible. There are certainly electeds that have ignored me many times. But you're way more likely to get an answer on that. So, in terms of open government and transparency, having all these Zoom meetings is probably not a great direction to take. 

Lauren Burke  

Yeah, I'm sort of torn here. On the one hand, I think COVID did instruct us and teach us that we did not necessarily have to sit in a cubicle someplace and a particular place at a particular time. Obviously, during COVID, people figured out ways to get work done in the technological world that we live in with cell phones, text, texting, and everything else. There's a lot of ability to be able to communicate, and in fact, just by the technology that we have now, which we did not have 15 to 20 years ago. And I think we should leverage that technology when we can. And the Zoom meetings really blew up in 2020 and 2021. And I was surprised at how much we got done with them. You can also include a lot of people in the Zoom meetings that would not necessarily be included. And I think about our friends out there in Southwest Virginia when I say that, even though wi-fi is still an issue out there. There are so many meetings where they were able to be included. Political meetings, and everything else. But at the same time, I hear your point. There are times when I physically show up to things because I know there's no way I could execute the same conversation by electronic means. And particularly if you're talking about things that require you to really read somebody's body language or the nuances of communication, some of which are nonverbal. You do want to see that in person. And that is an invaluable thing.

Michael Pope  

Yeah, we had a similar discussion about wills on the podcast. Do you actually physically need to be in a lawyer's office in order to write a will. So obviously, there's a lobby of lawyers, the members of the General Assembly who have a professional interest in making sure that these people come into their office. And that's part of it. But there's another part of it, where you can read a person's body language, you can tell if they're answering questions based on what's in their mind, or if they've got a relative, or somebody who is trying to feed them information, and, you know, make them answer a certain way. On our game show, we had Senator Jeremy McPike talk about his experience as a firefighter. Showing up to provide emergency medical services. You can also learn a lot about how other people react to people who need emergency medical services. In other words, do they scatter when the EMTs arrive? Do they not want to answer questions? Or do they stay to help? I mean, these are all kinds of things that are really important, like being physically in a room with someone. I mean, we were just at the end of the General Assembly session, and we had a lot of people in rooms with each other. And imagine what it would have been like if that were a virtual session. This is not an academic question. Because you and I remember the 2021 General Assembly session when the House was all virtual, and the Senate was in person. And I will say I don't think the House was a shining example of great government in the year 2021. 

Lauren Burke  

Yeah, well. I don't know if we should lay that totally on the members and everybody that was there at the time because there was a global problem with the computer system of the government of Virginia. Which is being discussed a little bit right now. But I do think that certainly the new technology, obviously, artificial intelligence, and you mentioned the legal. I work with attorneys quite frequently, as well as Legal Zoom. All of these things are changing the way that we do business and really challenging us on the question of whether or not we need to be in person. But you're absolutely right. It's funny; my parents were EMTs as well, and Senator McPike brings up a good point like you: Do you have to see? Do you have to read the room? You do have to read the room. And I do think, as we've discussed before, social media has certainly created situations that are much more negative than they would be in person. In fact, I think they would be nonexistent if they were a person. I mean, the things that people do on social media, they would never do to your face in person. And I've certainly had that experience, I think many of us had, where you are having some sort of argument, maybe in your DMs, or maybe right out on X with someone, and then you see the person, two days later in person, and they don't say anything. So it's a really strange dynamic. And I'm not sure it's a positive one. So, I do think being in person definitely has some huge advantages. You know, I will say, though, when it comes to a lot of the office work of government and government executive type work, I do think a disproportionate amount of that. I'm not talking about the legislature; I'm talking about when you're reaching out to constituents and assisting them on something. A lot of that could be electronic, and you don't necessarily need to be right there in person. So it really depends on what type of profession we're talking about. I mean, you see things like BetterHelp. And you say to yourself, well, for psychiatry, it would seem to meet. I want to be in person for that. It is the work of feelings and the things that are not necessarily easy to pin down. But then again, a lot of people enjoy talking on Zoom. So it depends on what we're talking about.

Michael Pope  

All right, let's move on to our next story. The Vagina Monologues Republicans who want to restrict the right to abortion say they're tired of people being used as props. Here's Republican Delegate Phil Scott of Spotsylvania County.

Del. Phillip Scott  

I am tired of the child who may not live being used as a reason to keep abortion unrestricted in Virginia. And so anyone walks a mile in the shoes of those with a family member who has one of these severe medical conditions that ultimately limit the life of that loved one. Stop with the political rhetoric.

Lauren Burke  

Democrats say they don't want a bunch of old white men making decisions about women's health care.

Kelly Convirs-Fowler  

We must challenge the subtle sexism that is woven into every space that women exist in and dismantle the patriarchy that perpetuates discrimination and inequality.

Lauren Burke  

That's delegate Kelly Convirs-Fowler, a Democrat from Virginia Beach, who closed her speech this way. 

Kelly Convirs-Fowler  

Happy International Women's Day. And if you don't have a vagina, stop. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Michael Pope  

Yeah, with Democrats controlling the General Assembly and Republicans controlling the Governor's office, the two sides in this debate are essentially canceling each other out. But abortion rights are expected to be a major topic of conversation next year when lawmakers will consider this constitutional amendment to the Virginia constitution to enshrine the right to an abortion. So, Lauren, I put these sound bites in here because I was in the House chamber for the speeches, and they really grabbed my attention. You know, it's not frequent that you hear members of the General Assembly talk about dismantling the patriarchy; you've never heard that in the Senate. And then this line about, if you don't have a vagina, stop. You would never hear that in the Senate. So shout out to the House for being the more raucous and, frankly, a way more interesting body.

Lauren Burke  

Yeah, we definitely saw some interesting exchanges. And that was very interesting. Glad you caught that one because I had not heard it until now. So that was interesting. And I think that the Delegate from Virginia Beach makes a good point. Imagine if we were discussing a policy issue specific to male anatomy. Women were in charge of that discussion; we're saying that they should control the discussion. And by the way, guys, shut up, as we're talking about it, and how dare you bring this up? That's effectively what Delegate Scott was saying. And it's a very interesting thing that we hear all the time during abortion discussions is an attitude that there are people involved in the discussion that don't have to go through the thing that we're discussing. I will say, again, with Republicans, once again, you have this problem of being so concerned with everybody in utero. And then, when the person is born, this is the same party that is against the quality of life issues that would make an individual's life better, which are around poverty and raising the minimum wage and SNAP benefits and food stamps. They're not interested in any of that. So, I just don't understand that there's a lack of consistency there. And that is never explained. So it is interesting that it happened. I'm glad you caught that exchange.

Michael Pope  

Yeah. And then on the topic of dismantling the patriarchy, on a separate topic that we did talk about on this podcast, the bill on revenge porn. There was a discussion on the Senate floor between two white men. Delegate Irene Chen pointed out to me that this bill is really aimed at protecting women. Frankly, the women are often the victims of revenge porn. And so then you've got these old white men debating it on the Senate floor; there's something wrong with this picture.

Lauren Burke  

Well, actually, I would push back a little bit on that. I don't think we should have the attitude that anyone in our politics, whether they be white, Black, Latino, Asian, or whatever, should not be in the discussion. But I would point out that there are certain discussions that are very unique to one gender, and certainly giving birth. The abortion thing is very unique to one gender. But when it comes to revenge porn, that could be anyone; any gender can be the victim of that, anybody, any age, can be the victim of that. And I think, once again, shout out to Susanna Gibson for really detailing her situation in a way that was not detailed in the media. Because there were some aspects of that. I think most people would not think about whether you have some private conduct that you're only showing to a small amount of people. And then somebody decides in that group that they're going to amplify it to a greater number of people, which is the issue of that piece of legislation. But you know, I don't necessarily think that white guy shouldn't be involved in that discussion; I think everybody should be involved in that discussion.

Michael Pope  

On the topic of Susanna Gibson and what happened to her, our podcast was really eye-opening. If the listeners have not heard that episode, you should go back and check out our interview with Susanna Gibson during the General Assembly session. You know, after we did that episode, a thought occurred to me: It would be an interesting parlor game to ask people to try to explain what happened and to listen to what they say. Because people have all these assumptions that are just wrong. For that, she posted something online. And not true. She never posted anything online. But she made money, and it was not true; she never made any money. I mean, people's basic assumptions about what happened there are completely wrong.

Lauren Burke  

Yeah. And that's because our media is built for and is making its money off of the click rates of the ads clicked next to the story. So that headline has got to be sensational enough to get somebody to stop, particularly when they're scrolling on their phone, stop and click it. So again, this is not a hit on Laura Vozzella at all because of Laura Vozzella. The Washington Post does not write the headlines; very rarely, if at all, do the writers write the headlines. They have somebody writing that headline that they know is going to get the proper SEO search engine optimization to click that link. And that is sort of what happens in part to Susanna Gibson's story. Because if you read that headline, you'll get the impression of exactly what you just said. And that is not what happened. So I think it's incumbent on the media to be very clear about what they're telling the public is disenfranchising when the media gets these things wrong. It is not clear what exactly happened, which is misleading. Again, a lot of these bigger papers are the so-called papers of record, such as the Washington Post and the New York Times. There are a lot of editors, copy editors, etc., and so on who are involved. So, I would caution the audience not to target the writer. I know that's crazy to say when you see the writer's name at the top of the story, but I've seen it happen a lot of times where there were a lot of other people involved that changed the face of these stories.

Michael Pope  

Yes, the nameless, faceless editors at the Washington Post have certainly shared some of the responsibility for how people view this, and people don't understand what happened. Clearly, if you start asking people about the details of what happened to Susanna Gibson, the popular conceptions are just flat-out wrong. All right. Let's take a break. When we come back, we will play a round of trivia and read your comments.

All right, let's play some trivia. Last week, we asked you how many Virginia State constitutions the Commonwealth has had over the years?

Lauren Burke  

And wow, did we get a lot of responses. Our listeners are into constitutional history! 

Michael Pope  

Yes, Pod Virginia listeners are very into constitutional history. Okay, so the answer is that it's a trick question. So it depends on how you want to count them. Get your hands on a hard copy of the Constitution from the bill room across the street from the General Assembly building. You can turn to page two, and you'll see the answer right there in the very first paragraph of the foreword written by AE Dick Howard. The Constitution, as in this Constitution, is the fifth complete revision of Virginia's fundamental law since 1776. So, five is probably technically the correct answer. Because there have been five constitutions over the years. 1776, which is an obvious one, is the one you needed to create a constitution when you split from Great Britain. Okay, so 1776 was the first Constitution, and then there's the 1830 Constitution that radically changed how the government works. It changed the Governor's office, and it also changed the Senate. The senators were previously forbidden from introducing legislation; they could only amend stuff that they got from the House. So, the 1776 model was really kind of outdated. It was also really heavily based on the British Parliament. So they got rid of that in 1830. They made things more modern from their perspective. Then, in 1870, there was the post-Civil War constitution, also known as the Underwood Constitution, which was very controversial. And then there's the 1902 Jim Crow constitution. Okay, so that's 1776, 1830, 1870, 1902. And then in 1971. But wait a minute, AE Dick Howard also gives us a footnote; if you look on that same page, the footnote says this quote, this does not count the Constitution 1864, which was drafted under wartime conditions, and whose legal status was never quite certain. This count also does not include the revisions of 1928. Well, I would ask our listeners, why don't we count those to the 1928 changes to the Constitution, including something to Harry Bryd called the short ballot, which is, this is why today we only have three statewide offices as opposed to other states where they elect the person that oversees the public schools. They elect the person who oversees the elections. We don't do that in Virginia because of Harry Bryd's short ballot. That's the 1928 changes. So, we're not counting the 1928 changes. That seems like a very important change to me. By the way, you can read more about that in my book The Bryd Machines; buy a copy. Okay, so the best answer to the question is five. But if you want it to say seven, I would say that's also a correct answer. 

Lauren Burke  

And we have some winners; Richard Meager says it depends on who's counting, but I follow the Library of Virginia, or at least what I think they should say, which is seven.

Michael Pope  

Matthew Savage said Sorensen grads know it's six. 

Lauren Burke  

Okay, we'll take six as a correct answer. 

Michael Pope  

Six is good. Six is good. So, Richard Meager, in his social media post answering the question, posted a great link from the Library of Virginia that I had not seen pointed out, which actually has 11 different entries. Okay. So, if you're keeping score, the original answer was five. And then we said, Well, seven might also be a correct answer, but now we're seeing 11. Okay, here's the list. 1606 Okay, so you could count 1606, the original when Virginia was actually created, that there is an argument there that there is a 1606 constitution that's worth including in our list. Then there's 1776, so we already talked about 1830. We already talked about 1851, 1864, and 1870. We talked about 1902. Then we've got this list of other very important changes to the Constitution. 1928 is the Bryd short ballot, among other things. 1945, there was a change. 1956 There was a reaction to massive resistance to the change of the Constitution. And then, of course, 1971, the current Constitution. So that is 11 constitutions. So, I mean, this was our trivia question for this week. I think the obvious answer would be five; seven would be an answer. That is a little more fulsome, but I think I'm gonna go with 11. Lauren has had 11 different constitutions over the years.

Lauren Burke  

Okay, wow. Well, there was a trivia question that I would have never gotten right.

Michael Pope  

But our listeners, our listeners, are into this. 

Lauren Burke  

All right. And then that's a good thing because I learned a lot on that one. Okay. So, what's our trivia question for next week?

Michael Pope  

All right. So, instead of looking to the past, we are going to look ahead. So here is your Pod Virginia trivia question for this week. What is the next memorial that will be added to Capitol Square? I'll give you a hint. There was a bit of a preview last week, on the very last day of the session, when there was a donation that was given to Senate clerk Susan Clarke Schaar. It was donated to this brand-new memorial that is in the planning stages right now. So, this is the trivia question for next week. What is the next memorial that will be added to Capitol Square? 

Lauren Burke  

Nice. If you think you know the answer, share it with us on social media. You might even win a prize. 

Michael Pope  

Let's head over to the water cooler. Lauren, what's the latest you've heard around there?

Lauren Burke  

I am going to give a shout-out to Connie Clay about this water cooler. Connie Clay is the former FOIA Officer for the City of Richmond, Virginia. She has sued the city of Richmond, Virginia, after being fired. She alleges in her complaint that she was stopped from processing FOIAs and doing her job in the city's office, and this is a surprise to absolutely nobody who has actually filed a FOIA having anything to do with the City of Richmond under the leadership of Levar Stoney. So effectively, what has happened is we're getting a very clear glimpse into the world of FOIA in an office that has had a lot of FOIAs. And I think a lot of these political offices haven't completely exempted themselves. Congress does get a lot of FOIAs. And if you've worked in a political law office, and I've worked in political offices in New York and Virginia, and on the federal level, and you get FOIA requests, I mean, is that a revolutionary thing? It just isn't. And I'm not sure why people get into the business of Public Policy and Government, thinking that they're working in some private firm or some sort of private business. You will get FOIA requests. And a lot of cases for very good reason. I've always told people I've worked with and had to supervise that there really should be nothing that we're doing in this office that can't withstand a FOIA request. In fact, I would actually argue that there's nothing that we should be doing in this office that someone couldn't just come in here and go through our email and read them and probably get really freaking bored really fast. But for whatever reason, in the city's office in Richmond, the city government has been dodging FOIA requests for years. It's been going on for years, and we've had many things bubble up into the public eye and lawsuits filed. Paul Goldman, the attorney in Richmond, used to be the campaign manager for L. Douglas Wilder, the first Black Governor, not only in Virginia but also in the country. He has filed several lawsuits. Josh Stanfield at Activate Virginia has filed several lawsuits, but they're not the only ones. Tyler Lane over at CBS 6 should be commended. You know, he has pushed for FOIA requests but has not gotten them. And then there's a lawsuit. And this just keeps going on and on. So, finally, Connie Clay has sued the city for $250,000. And she's alleging that she was fired because she was trying to do her job. Now, of course, we should be mindful of the fact that the people who are named in the lawsuit do get a chance to respond. In this case, they will be responding in court. I actually think they should respond to the media in public right now. I'm not sure why they're not doing that. However, we should not necessarily assume that everything we read in a legal filing of a complaint is completely accurate, but we will see what happens. I will say this, what she writes sounds pretty consistent with what we've been hearing for years. Several things have happened, of course, over the last eight years that have been the subject of and have been completely ignored. The city had a big deal with the Navy Hill development deal, which, of course, just happened to involve the late CEO of Dominion Power, Tom Farrell; what an amazing coincidence, a major donor to many politicians in Virginia politics. And, of course, the selection of police chiefs in Richmond was the subject of FOIAs. There have been several police chiefs. So shout out to Connie Clay; we'll see what happens. We'll see if what she says pans out and if the facts as alleged in her complaint are accurate. I have a feeling that they will be. What say you, Michael? 

I think if you had a mayor of Richmond who was running for Governor and wanted press about him running a city in a way that is going to attract votes, you would not want any of this to be part of the public discussion. What is wrong with Richmond? Why are they so in a cave here and trying to hide stuff? I mean, one of the things from Tyler Lane's excellent reporting on this is the cover-up is horrible. So there's the original wrongdoing of screwing up the FOIA requests but then trying to cover it up and not share information that should be part of the public record. You would think that a mayor who wants to be Governor would be a little more forceful and make sure people knew what was going on in his city hall. But this just keeps happening over and over again. And yeah, shout out to Tyler there at CBS 6 because he's really killing it with a story. 

It also leads to a great deal of suspicion when there are FOIA requests made for things that, to me, really, the stuff that has been requested in a lot of these cases is not that controversial. Now, you could have differences of policy opinion on certain things. Obviously, the mayor has to make certain decisions about public policy that anyone could disagree or agree with. But I just think that the overall attitude of this administration in Richmond is that this is our private thing. Why are you bothering us? Why are you bothering us with questions? You know, we said that this is what's going to happen, and this is what's going to happen. And if we have a press conference once every six months, then that should explain everything.

Michael Pope  

Wait, are we talking about Glenn Youngkin here? Are we talking about Richmond? I mean, the way you just described it sounds like the Glenn Youngkin leadership. 

Lauren Burke  

Now, interestingly enough, I sure have talked to Governor Youngkin a hell of a lot more than I've ever seen Levar Stoney behind a microphone. And that's just the truth. You could walk up to Governor Youngkin at any event he's at and talk to him.

Michael Pope  

Well, no, you could try, you could try? 

Lauren Burke  

Well, I'll tell you what, I've talked to him at least six or seven times over the last three months. And he's had these gaggles, obviously, at his press event last week. I'm not saying we're hanging out with them, you know, for beer at night, but he's a lot more accessible than the mayor of Richmond. And that should not be the case. I mean, that really shouldn't be the case. But I think that there's a governance attitude thereof; well, these people are annoying; I don't really need to answer anything. And so why is it that this is sort of a school of communications, you know, that doesn't do any talking? Don't feed the machine, and nothing will happen. And, of course, this leads to this big, huge blow-up. This woman worked in the office. Okay. Connie Clay worked in the office. So this is going to be interesting. And I want to preface it again that just because something is filed, it doesn't make it accurate. It does have to play out in court, and let's see what everyone says under oath. But, like I say, it sure as heck sounds familiar. What about you, Michael? What do you have for the water cooler? 

Michael Pope  

Well, people are buzzing about the Governor's initial reaction to the legislation. So, in the next few weeks, we are going to be hearing about all of the Governor's actions in terms of vetoing this bill and amending that bill. And we've got an early window into this because there are the immediate action bills that the Governor had to take action on within a seven-day window. They're called the seven-day bills. So we've got this kind of early indication of what we can expect as a coming attraction for the coming weeks. As we move closer to the veto session, So he's signed 64 bills, amended 12 bills, and then vetoed 8 bills. So, let's start with the vetoes. He vetoed this bill, which would have required Virginia to rejoin ERIC. This is a good government group that makes sure that the voter rolls don't have dead people on them and that they're accurate. For whatever reason, there's a right-wing conspiracy theory about ERIC that it's problematic or that it's pro-democratic. So, the Governor does not like being part of this multi-state group for good governance in elections. And so he vetoed ERIC. There was another bill to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. He vetoed that bill. There was another bill that would prevent school boards from banning books in the future. The Governor apparently likes banning books. So he vetoed that bill. Then you get to the amendments. He signed the bill on gay marriage but created an exemption for people who have a religious problem with marrying gay people. So, like, gay marriage is fine, but don't make people perform gay marriages that have a problem with gay marriage. And then they're on the contraception very similar sort of exemption. So yeah, health insurance companies have to pay for contraception, except when they've got a problem with it, and then they don't pay. So, the same sort of thing with gay marriage and contraception. And then there was another gun bill, but this one had an amendment rather than a veto. So this would make school boards notify parents about the importance of locking up their guns. You would think this would be kind of a no-brainer, but the Governor added an amendment that he wants a comprehensive list of all of the parental rights. So this actually harkens back to his 2021 campaign, which was largely based around parental rights. So, this is just a little coming attraction to what we can expect out of the Governor heading into the veto session next month.

Lauren Burke  

Yeah, I mean, shout out to freshman Delegate Rozia Henson, who is going to have his gay marriage bill signed into law in his first session as a member of the General Assembly. I don't think there's too many surprises here.

Michael Pope  

Well, I mean, actually, there were two surprises. One was that the Governor would sign the bill. I mean, I was kind of surprised by that when I first saw it. House Bill 174, as you mentioned, was authored by this freshman House Democrat, the first openly gay man to serve in Virginia's legislature. So the Governor will be signing that, and I thought that was surprising. Also surprising is his amendment that says anyone shall have the right to refuse to perform gay marriages if they have a religious objection to it. So, I wouldn't have put that on my bingo card for this year.

Lauren Burke  

I wouldn't put it on my bingo card that he would assign anything related to that. I think the amendment and reading Delegate Henson's press release tell me that the amendment is not going to take away from the celebration. I think the celebration is going to be pretty fun. You know, I think it was interesting. He signed that; I would not have been surprised if he had vetoed the entire thing. And it will be interesting to see what comes next. Obviously, I think everyone is expecting a lot of vetoes, to say the least. And with the Arena deal going down. Obviously, they take it one week at a time with the vetoes. It is interesting. I mean, it's a divided government. What it is, there is a veto record that is likely to be broken here. I think that's 120, set by Governor McAuliffe. And I think that Governor Youngkin is likely to surpass that number.

Michael Pope  

Mm, hmm. Also, I imagine he would take special glee in taking out his veto pen for any bill that has Louise Lucas's name on it. 

Lauren Burke  

Well, I mean, he can if he wants to, but she's not going anywhere. And until people are respectful of each other's leadership, you're going to have an impasse. I mean, you're not the king of Virginia; you do have to deal with other people who have been sent here by Virginians; this is an electorate. This is a democracy we live in. So I think we'll see what happens with that. 

Michael Pope  

Yeah, he might want to go back and read that 1776 constitution. All right, Lauren. Let's go ahead and open up that Pod Virginia mailbag. What are our listeners talking about?

Lauren Burke  

Double-breasted suits: We got a lot of feedback about our discussion of double-breasted suits on our Game Show episode of Buy, sell, and Hold.

Michael Pope  

Davenport Mallory said, "buy especially pastel suits on Easter Sunday."

Lauren Burke  

Jim Lokay said, "Not for everyone, but they look great on the right person."

Michael Pope  

Just1Conservative said, "Sell, you either need to be muscular or rotund for it to go."

Zach Lincoln posted this, "I would say by but I'm too broke for a suit." 

Shout out to Zack Lincoln. I'm in the same boat myself here. Brandon Smith Wood posted this, "If you can rock them, you should. The important thing to know is when you're not the right fit. The Senator has it right".

Lauren Burke  

Speaking of the Senator, we also heard from Senator Aaron Rouse, whose love of double-breasted suits prompted the discussion. He posted this on social media. "Buy my advice, wear the suit, don't let the suit wear you." 

Michael Pope  

Ah, yes, thank you, Senator Rouse, for playing, buy, sell, or hold. There was a little bit of pushback to a photograph that Pod Virginia posted of Aaron Rouse wearing his double-breasted suit. Kevin Saucedo-Broach saw that photo and posted this: "Buy but not if he's going to button both buttons like that." Okay, Lauren, there's all this, all these unwritten rules in men's fashion that you have to follow. One of them has to do with vests; you're not supposed to button the bottom button for events. For example, if you're wearing a three-piece suit, you're supposed to leave that button unbuttoned, and it's a similar sort of thing to a double-breasted suit. For whatever reason, you're supposed to button the top button but not the bottom button. So, if it's a three-button double-breasted suit, you can button the top two but not the lowest one. So I think that's what Kevin was talking about, the fashion rules. But clearly, Aaron Rouse is rocking the double-breasted suit so he can button as many buttons as he wants to, and I think he's gonna get away with it. 

Lauren Burke  

Yeah, I think he's going to get away with it. You know, he played for the Giants, so he can pretty much do whatever he wants, and I'm good with that. But I do know what Kevin's talking about. I've heard many a male friend say that you're not supposed to button the bottom button, and I know what Kevin's talking about there.

Michael Pope  

All right, let's celebrate some birthdays this week. Today, Monday, March 11th, is the birthday of Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears.

Lauren Burke  

Happy Birthday to Virginia's historic lieutenant governor. 

Michael Pope  

Thursday, March 14th, is the birthday of Delegate Rip Sullivan.

Lauren Burke  

Friday, March 15th. It is the birthday of Congressman Morgan Griffith.

Michael Pope  

Wait, wait. Is this the Morgan Griffith who voted to overturn the election after the insurrectionists left the Capitol building? 

Lauren Burke  

Yes. Fun fact: after the insurrection was over, Morgan Griffith voted for the insurrectionists. 

Michael Pope  

All right, well, happy birthday anyway.

Lauren Burke  

March 15th is also the birthday of Delegate Delores Oates of Front Royal. 

Michael Pope  

All right, yes, Happy Birthday all around and happy sine die.

Lauren Burke  

Yes, Happy sine die. That's it for this episode of Pod Virginia.