Mayor Duman – Care4Suffolk

UPDATE on FOIA Violation

Care4Suffolk — Wed, 11 Feb 2026 15:16:25 +0000

After the last article was published, the city reached out to provide the withheld email.

In the original article, Riversbend FOIA Issue – FOIA Violations Are Piling Up!, we showed that this one email was withheld completely from the FOIA request with the reason given that it is a “working paper” for the City Manager.

Here is the withheld email (It contained the attached slideshow presentation as well):

Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes was just forwarding an email with an attached presentation to Mayor Duman. This definitely does NOT qualify as “working papers” despite the claim made by the City.

We experienced another FOIA violation last year, where an email was withheld under Attorney-Client privilege, only to find out there was no attorney present on the email.

In this FOIA violation, we were told this was working papers, when it clearly isn’t. We may have since received the email requested, but it does NOT un-do the violation of my FOIA rights. Additionally, the City is showing a pattern of withholding public documents under false pretenses.

Another thing to note here is that Mr. Hughes was emailing Mayor Duman at his private email (mike.duman@mikeduman.com) – NOT his official email (mayor@suffolkva.us). Why?

Why is Mr. Hughes sharing this with the Mayor who is barred from being part of the process because of his conflict of interest? Why is he using the Mayor’s personal email instead of the Mayor’s public email? How much other city business is being conducted using communication methods that obfuscate FOIA rules? If I want to see any communication between the Mayor and, say, a developer, how would that work? As a Mayor that could constitute official business. But how would the FOIA office even have access to that information if it is out of the City’s system?

I appreciate the City finally releasing this email as they were legally required, but I now have more questions than answers.

Riversbend FOIA Issue – FOIA Violations Are Piling Up!

Care4Suffolk — Thu, 05 Feb 2026 16:46:16 +0000

The FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) violations by the City of Suffolk are starting to pile up! The latest is from a FOIA request asking for emails between Mayor Duman and Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes:

There were three responsive documents – three emails that fit the criteria. One email was just a notice to all City Council Members stating the developer wanted to delay until December (their favorite month to put controversial votes!) The Riversbend rezoning was then delayed again to be voted on at the February 18th city council meeting.

The second document was an email dated October 14, 2025, that contained the slide show presentation that Kevin Hughes presented in front of the October 9, 2025 meeting of the Suffolk Public School Board. This was the meeting where Kevin Hughes, on behalf of the Mayor and City Council, asked the SPS Board to weigh in on the Riversbend rezoning and the potential administrative building proffer that the school board could receive as part of the project.

The third document was actually withheld completely. It was an email that was not included at all, with just the reason given that it is a “working paper” for the City Manager.

I wrote to the head of the FOIA department back on December 19, the day after receiving this and followed up recently, having not yet received a response. I included in my email part of the state code that discusses the duty to redact. State code is very clear: it can only be excluded entirely if the entire content of the email has to be excluded. Otherwise, the City is required to release those portions that don’t qualify under the exclusion.

By fully withholding the email, there is no way to ascertain WHEN it was sent, WHO is on the email, or any other information that may be gleaned from a redacted email, like how long it is, whether there were any attachments, etc..

We have had previous articles on FOIA violations by the City of Suffolk. You can read about another instance experienced by a member of Care4Suffolk here and here. In that case, the City redacted under the guise of Attorney-Client privilege, only for the member to later learn, after paying $80 to schedule a court date, that the email did not even have an attorney on the email, so withholding it on the basis of attorney-client privilege was definitely a violation.

We can follow that process again, by writing another petition for mandamus and spend the roughly $80 to have the City served and be required to appear in court – and we may yet choose that option, again – but we shouldn’t have to.

The City of Suffolk should not be hiding information from citizens. They used the attorney-client privilege when there was no attorney on that other email. Now they are using “working papers” as an excuse. Why are there even “working papers” for Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes in his communication with Mayor Duman, when Mayor Duman has a conflict of interest with the Riversbend rezoning and has had to recuse himself from the proceedings?

I just want to take this opportunity to remind everyone that this whole Ryan Homes project for Riversbend has had a top-down push through the whole process. Examples include:

Mayor Duman has a conflict of interest in this project because of a financial relationship with Ryan Homes. (See videos below.)
Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes, who reports directly to the Mayor and City Council has been very hands-on with this particular rezoning, even prior to the application being submitted to the City.
March 19, 2025 – Email from Melissa Venable, of Land Planning Solutions, to Kevin Hughes to set up a meeting to “move forward with the VDOT property zoning”
March 26, 2025 – Email sent ahead of meeting with site map. Map had an original date of November 26, 2024 and then updated Mar 21, 2025, already showing EDA land as part of the site plan. (The EDA is the City’s Economic Development Authority board, so the land is owned by the City of Suffolk.)

April 22, 2025 – Email from Melissa Venable to Kevin Hughes stating: “I wanted to verify that the Econ. Dev. Parcel shall remain as a MUD parcel on the attached? We are finalizing the application to get to you for signature” Note that this email was from 3 weeks before the EDA Board even knew about the project. Kevin Hughes was arranging for the EDA land to be included in the application. The EDA approval was just a formality.
April 23, 2025 – Email from Melissa Venable to Kevin Hughes and Adam Edbauer (Ryan Homes) with subject heading: VDOT Application & Signatures. Venable mentions proffer language that Edbauer and Hughes have discussed.
May 14, 2025 – EDA Meeting: During a closed-door session for 2 properties unrelated to Riversbend, Kevin Hughes gives a presentation on the Riversbend project and makes a push for the EDA to approve the EDA’s joint venture with the Riversbend Project. Approved by EDA. Note: the EDA land was essential for the Riversbend project to move forward because it need the the land for the primary entrance/exit. (Purple land on map is EDA owned land.)
September 11, 2025 – Hughes, in an unprecedented move, makes presentation to School Board and asks for formal response from the School Board
October 9, 2025 – Hughes, stating he is representing the Mayor and City Council, answers questions and again requests a formal response from the School Board. School Board votes 8-0 to deny support of the Riversbend Project. Again, with the Mayor’s conflict of interest, why is Mr. Hughes claiming to be speaking on behalf of the mayor?

Suffolk Mayor Mike Duman on his Facebook Live (December 1, 2025) discusses his conflict of interest with Ryan Homes and the Riversbend project.

Suffolk Mayor Mike Duman during City Council Meeting (November 19, 2025) wanting to ask a question regarding the Riversbend project and asking the City Attorney if he can with his conflict of interest. Meeting link

Suffolk Mayor Mike Duman during joint City Council & School Board Meeting (December 3, 2025): In this video clip, Mayor Duman is told multiple times, by City Council’s lawyer no less, that he is not allowed to speak on the Riversbend project, yet here is, trying to share his opinion on it. Meeting link

The above video clip is from the September 11, 2025 School Board Meeting. In this clip, Interim City Manager states that they don’t present to the school board ever on rezonings, because it is City Council’s purview. So we know that this unprecedented move makes this rezoning special, specifically regarding the proffers that Kevin Hughes helped write.

The above video clip is from the October 9, 2025 School Board Meeting. In this clip, Interim City Manager states he is there “representing the Mayor and City Council” which is particularly interesting since Mayor Duman has a conflict of interest with this project.

And now we know that sometime between January 1 to December 3, 2025, there was an email that included BOTH Mayor Duman and Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes, and we know it was regarding the Riversbend project.

Yet, we are to believe that the city can’t release this email – not even the date or the subject or who was included on the email – because it is “working papers” for Kevin Hughes.

What does “working papers” even mean? The Code of Virginia defines it in the following way:

“’Working papers’ means those records prepared by or for a public official identified in this subdivision for his personal or deliberative use.”

§ 2.2-3705.3. (Effective July 1, 2026) Exclusions to application of chapter; records relating to administrative investigations

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) explains it a little more fully:

“Most probably, the purpose of the provision is to provide certain high-ranking executives some privacy over their decision-making prior to that decision being made. The idea being that if the public can see the decision-making process at every step along the way officials might not be able to be as candid and the quality of the decisions they reach might be affected.”

Both of these identify the deliberative use, or decision-making process, as a necessary part of the “working papers”. So if this email is truly “working papers” for Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes, then why does it involve Mayor Duman, who indisputably has a conflict of interest with this specific rezoning? What decision was being considered by Mr. Hughes regarding the Riversbend rezoning, especially considering that the decision actually lies with City Council, not him? What Riversbend-related decision would Mr. Hughes need to involve the Mayor in, considering he is not only prohibited from voting on the issue, he is not allowed to discuss it?

The Riversbend project itself is rife with transparency issues. Suffolk’s Mayor has a financial conflict of interest with the project, and yet the Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes has been very hands-on from the very beginning. If this isn’t concerning enough for citizens, the city government is refusing to fulfill their legal duty to provide this email communication and instead is hiding behind “working papers.”

Here are some FOIA Violations to date, that we are aware of:

December 2024 – City Council voted to adopt the 2045 Comprehensive Plan without giving the required public notice.
August 2025 – FOIA request resulted in a response of a fully redacted email while FALSELY claiming attorney-client privilege. It was later discovered no attorney was involved in the communication.
May 2025 – City of Suffolk’s Economic Development Authority (EDA) entered into a closed meeting to discuss two projects (Polka and Goober). The Riversbend project was also discussed during this closed-door session without being on the agenda, even though it did not meet the qualifications for closed-door session because the Suffolk EDA was not contemplating the sale of a parcel or any other “publicly held real property”. Therefore, using the exemption at 2.2-3711-(A)(3) was improper. (See email and information below)
August 2025 – FOIA request for the slide show presentation given by Kevin Hughes to the EDA Board May 2025 meeting. The FOIA request was denied for the reason: closed door meeting. However, “no record that is otherwise open to inspection under FOIA shall be deemed exempt by virtue of the fact that it has been reviewed or discussed in a closed meeting.” (See email and information below)

The email below is from the FOIA Council, after the EDA Vice Chair reached out to them concerned about the EDA May 14th Meeting and whether proper procedure was adhered to. The FOIA Council response explains the following:

FOIA should be narrowly construed, meaning the city shouldn’t be using it to get around disclosure requirements.
Closed sessions are for the purchase, sale, or lease of real property and not for rezonings. Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes should not have used the closed meeting for his presentation to the EDA Board, as it was for a rezoning, not a sale, lease or purchase ofland.
The EDA Board’s vote on a rezoning application should have been part of the open session and part of the official record.
The city failing to provide the presentation that Mr. Hughes used to convince the EDA Board was also violation of FOIA. It should NOT have been withheld because it should have all happened during open session AND a closed session can not be used to prevent disclosure of information that would otherwise be open to inspection.

Mayor Duman Claims Developers are Listening

Care4Suffolk — Fri, 16 Jan 2026 15:25:47 +0000

During the November 2025 City Council meeting, after the Manning Road Rezoning Public Hearing, Mayor Duman stated:

“It’s quite evident that the developers are listening. We are listening.” Then he goes on to talk about how “we have done exactly what we need to do” and how the developer is doing what he can do “to the extent that he is capable of doing what he can do and still be able to move his project forward.”

Is Mayor Duman seriously saying that this is the best we can expect from developers in Suffolk? Let’s review the Manning Road issues to see what we can expect from the city and the developer:

In 2022 the developer, Bob Arnette, provided a traffic study for Manning Bridge Rd instead of Manning Rd. The analysis stated:

And this:

If you are familiar with the site location on Manning Road, you know how ludicrous this statement is. This would mean all cars head south from the site on Manning Road and go the long way (about 4 miles!) to catch Holland Road 3 miles WEST of the Manning Rd/Holland Rd intersection.

This was approved by city staff!!

By 2024, he provided a new traffic study, but this one is also NOT for Manning Road. Instead, the developer used existing city data for the Grove Ave/Holland Rd intersection.

The developer has NEVER done a traffic study on Manning Road. Yet this traffic study was also accepted by the city.

He did have an engineer go out there and measure the road and it shows the same thing we have been saying for 3 years – the road is narrow! The lanes are well below the state standard and the developer’s plan is to slap some asphalt on the narrow shoulder, adding inches and in some cases a couple feet of asphalt. The road will still below the state standard. This will not expand the road space itself. It will just pave from ditch to ditch and guardrail to guardrail. There is no engineering report that actually states if that will make the road safer or if it is even feasible. Why is City Council even considering allowing a developer to make substandard improvements in exchange for a large development.

I guess this is the ‘listening’ that the mayor is talking about?

The school proffers have decreased by $1.2 million. In 2022, the developer was offering $1.9 million for Kilby Shores Elementary and $1.2 million for Forest Glen Middle Schools.

Now he is only offering $1.9 million for Kilby Shores and nothing for Forest Glen.

The City has recently come up with a ‘new method’ of determining school proffers – developers no longer need to count ‘uncommitted’ developments, which is any development that doesn’t have a submitted site plan.

Uncommitted houses have gone through the rezoning process, so they can be built by-right at any time just by submitting a site plan. These houses will be built at some point AND will impact our schools and roads, but by NOT counting them, the developer gets to save a lot of money. He is off the hook for the extra proffers, but that money will have to come from somewhere. It will be passed on to taxpayers.

Maybe THAT is the listening the Mayor is referring to?

This developer does NOT have a right to rezone this property. He took a risk and engaged in speculative development, which has the potential to make him a lot of money. If this doesn’t get passed, he can just sell his land like everyone else does when they no longer want the property they own. Sometimes when you speculate, you lose.

If this passes, everyone that lives on or off of Manning Road will be subjected to the tripling of traffic which will greatly increase the chance of a serious accident. It is already a dangerous road that has seen fatalities. Adding more traffic means there will be more accidents and more risk to the safety and lives for our family, friends, and neighbors, not to mention the 300 new families that will be added.

City Council can say NO to this project. It is perfectly reasonable for them to say that they value the rights of the current property owners to safely enjoy and live in their homes, and that the desire, not right, of the developer to make a profit is not a good trade-off for the city and its citizens. They represent us, not him.

If the developer, the city and City Council are actually listening then they will know that what we are opposing is a development that will predictably DECREASE the SAFETY of the current residents. If City Council truly represent the people, they will put our safety above the profits of the developer.

Hot Mic Mike

Care4Suffolk — Fri, 22 Nov 2024 22:23:39 +0000

The whole point of a public hearing is so that the citizens can weigh in with their opinions and concerns on an issue before a decision is made and the votes are cast. The November 20th City Council Meeting was a mockery of that process.

Suffolk’s 2045 Comprehensive Plan is the controversial document that was on the agenda that night. The comp plan had previously gone before the City Council three months earlier on August 21st. At that meeting, Council Member Roger Fawcett (Sleepy Hole Borough), read his pre-written motion asking to table the comp plan vote, conveniently delaying it until after election day.

This past Wednesday, the farce played out in a much more obvious way. After the public hearing, at which roughly a hundred citizens were in attendance, City Council Member Shelley Butler Barlow (Chuckatuck Borough) expressed her concerns and then made a motion to table the vote until January 15, 2025. Several of the 14 public speakers that night had made this same request to delay the vote until January in order to allow the newly-elected City Council Member, Ebony Wright, a chance to take her seat (and replace Roger Fawcett). Allowing Ms. Wright the opportunity to vote on this plan would give her the opportunity to represent the citizens who elected her.

After Ms. Butler Barlow made her motion and just as Council Member Leroy Bennett (Cypress Borough) was seconding the motion, you can hear Mayor Mike Duman on hot mic whisper the words “substitute motion”. About eighteen seconds later as the potential January date was being clarified, you can again hear Mayor Duman on hot mic whisper “Psst, Roger” while leaning back and looking in Council Member Fawcett’s direction.

Hear Mayor Mike Duman whisper on a hot mic, “Substitute motion.” (Time stamp: 2:12:54)

Hear Mayor Mike Duman whisper on a hot mic, “Pssst, Roger.” (Time stamp: 2:13:12)

The importance of the “substitute motion” is that it will get voted on BEFORE the first motion. And this is exactly what played out. After being reminded by Mayor Duman, Council Member Roger Fawcett did indeed make a substitute motion that the vote be delayed until December 18th, instead of the January date. The significance of this is that December 18th is the last meeting at which Roger Fawcett will sit up on that dais as part of council.

Council Member Lou Ward (Nansemond Borough) seconded Fawcett’s motion and then the December 18th motion passed 5-3. (Council Members Butler Barlow, Bennett, and Tim Johnson (Holy Neck Borough) voted in opposition.) Because Fawcett’s motion passed, Ms. Butler Barlow’s motion was moot and didn’t get voted on.

This was clearly orchestrated. Mayor Mike Duman needs to make sure that this comp plan passes and if Council were to vote in January instead of December, he risks losing the guaranteed ‘Yes’ vote of Roger Fawcett, the man who served as the Steering Committee Chair for this comp plan.

This is why we say that this Public Hearing was a farce. The Mayor of Suffolk and at least one Council Member (maybe more) had this planned in advance of the meeting. Members of our elected City Council had already determined how this would play out before the Public Hearing even began. Listening to all the citizen’s comments was just checking a box that is required by the State of Virginia.

When votes are decided in backroom conversations, democracy is not being served. When public officials manipulate the process to obtain the outcome they desire, democracy is not being served. When the city is no longer listening to its citizens, democracy is not being served.

We need our elected leaders to be better – and do better – than this.