LEGAL ISSUES IN LAST WEEK'S FULTON HOTEL INVESTIGATION

On Thursday, December 1, 2011, the Alexandria held an investigation into the City's expenditures on the Alexander Fulton Hotel as a result of Alexandria Mayor Jacques Roy not providing it with requested information on the subject for several weeks. (See: "THE FULTON INVESTIGATION: THE CITY COUNCIL BLEW IT").

Mayor Roy and his executive staff were sent subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum for documents. (See: "CITY COUNCIL SUBPOENAS MAYOR AND STAFF"). The documents demanded by the Council were turned over to it on November 10, 2011 (See: "THE JACQUES ROY TV SHOW FOR NOVEMBER 10, 2011").

Mayor Roy the fought back against the Council by re-starting his 2007 lawsuit against the Council, which had never been completed ("JACQUES' NEWEST PLOT AGAINST THE ALEXANDRIA CITY COUNCIL") and went, unsuccessfully, into Alexandria City Court the morning of the investigation to try to stop it from taking place ("JACQUES LOSES BIG TIME TODAY IN HIS BID TO STOP THE CITY COUNCIL").

Finally it came time for the investigation, and Mayor Roy had his brother and two cousins with him, among other attorneys, buffalo the Council into releasing the mayor and his staff from their subpoenas. See this video of the legal arguments made at the investigation:



I). As can be seen below, any argument objecting to the use of the term investigation must fail because that is the exact term used within the City Charter:

(Click on photo to enlarge)

II). I also feel that there was sufficient notice given by the Council of the time, date, and items to be covered by the testimony.

III). Chris Roy, Jr.'s, the mayor's brother, arguments that they mayor, who is in a separate branch of government, cannot be compelled to answer any questions by the City Council.  I note that the Alexandria City Charter and the Code of Ordinances make no such distiction.

IV). Perhaps the most troublesome concern is the claim that the subpoenas must have been personally served. Malcolm Larvadain, Councilman Ed Larvadain, III's brother and successfully argued against Mayor Roy earlier that day, personally told me the next day that the subpoenas were improperly served.

I have looked through the City Charter and the Councils' rules and I have found nothing which requires personal service. Perhaps if a reader does see it that can let us know where it is.

Now I realize state law requires personal service for a court, but I have not research the law to see if it also applies to municipal hearings and investigations. 

V). Contrary to the rules and regulations that prohibit advertisements on Channel 4, Councilman Larvadain also had boldly displayed an advertisement for a couple of local law firms where he was displaying Fulton documents. 

VI). While we were all eager to see exactly what the City had spent on the Fulton Hotel, Mayor Roy has often told us that the City was in the hotel business prior to the City having entered into the Downtown Hotels Initiative (D.H.I.), Ed made no distinction in expenses that have occurred after that date, when the City was supposedly expending no operational funds on the hotel.