A motion for sanctions that accused a Rocky Mount attorney of manipulating court records and making false statements in legal filings has been resolved in a settlement sealed from public view. Holland Perdue had faced the possibility of sanctions, which usually take the form of a monetary penalty imposed by a judge for improper conduct by an attorney, in a disputed estate case. Perdue is the mayor of Rocky Mount, although the request for sanctions did not involve his duties as an elected official.

No one involved in Virginia’s first campaign finance audit, released earlier this month, has yet to declare the process a success. Some of the seven local candidates included in the audit say they were not given the courtesy to review any deficiencies before the report was released to the public. The law’s patron is reserving judgment until he learns more from the Department of Elections, which paid $122,000 to a Maryland-based consulting firm hired to conduct the audits. The elections agency is saying nothing. The Department of Elections has refused to make anyone available to answer reporters’ questions about the 17-page report after it was posted July 1. The Department of Elections, which has no compliance staff, outsourced the review to GME Enterprises, a government contractor in Maryland. The report said the seven candidates generally cooperated, though it noted a few requests for documents went unanswered and some documents provided were illegible.

For years, Virginia has largely operated under the premise that everyone who runs for public office in the state is a fine, upstanding citizen who meticulously and accurately reports all campaign contributions and explains precisely where the money went. It’s Virginia, after all, where honor and integrity course through the veins of our distinguished, selfless leaders. Well, maybe. But a bit of salient advice from the late Ronald Reagan also pops to mind: “Trust but verify.” Three years ago, the General Assembly wisely passed a bill to add a layer of verification to all that trust. From now on, all candidates for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general will have their campaign finances reports audited by an independent firm, and 10% of legislative and 1% of local candidates will be subjected to the same review. Candidates who receive $25,000 or less are exempt from the audit. Under the current law, candidates subject to an audit must provide turn over records like cancelled checks as well as invoices and other specified documents to validate the more general information provided on their campaign finance reports. But it quickly became apparent that more documents are needed to ensure a thorough evaluation, according to the department’s report. Without access to credit card statements and loan documents, the auditors can’t get a complete picture of money going in and coming out of campaign treasuries. Lawmakers need to move swiftly to authorize the department to collect those documents. At the moment, election officials can ask only for records that are specified in the law.

A recent Ohio Supreme Court case stemming out of Montgomery County threatens to drastically limit Ohioans’ access to public records after the high court determined a public official’s private messages are not subject to public records law, even if those messages pertain to public business. The court’s unanimous ruling, rendered in June, was based on an interpretation of Ohio’s definition of public records as “records kept by any public office, including, but not limited to, state, county, city, village, township, and school district units…” The court determined that, because a public official’s private communications are not technically “kept” by a public office, those communications cannot be considered a public record. This threatens to overturn longstanding case law that says communications using a private email address or cell phone are public if they document a public function.