A heavily redacted version of a report by Martinsville’s attorneys sheds little light on the ongoing investigation into misconduct allegations against former City Manager Aretha Ferrell-Benavides. The version of the report, which summarized an investigation conducted by the Sands Anderson Law Firm, provided Monday to Cardinal News following a Virginia Freedom of Information Act request is 28 pages long, each page almost completely covered in black redaction. On Aug. 27 a less-redacted report was provided to Martinsville Commonwealth’s Attorney Andy Hall, who referred the case to Bedford County’s Wes Nance to take over as special prosecutor. In the weeks since starting his role, Nance said he has worked alongside Virginia State Police to gather evidence. … Nance declined to confirm if his office received any version of Sands Anderson’s report. On Aug. 26, a motion to release Sands Anderson’s report to the public failed to get a majority of votes from the conflicted council.

Any member of the Nottoway Board of Supervisors who reveals information discussed in closed session could face a fine if the full Board were to pursue it. That was one of several opinions provided by County Attorney Catherine Douglass at the Nottoway Board of Supervisors’ Nov. 20th meeting. She was responding to questions from District Two Supervisor John Roark about how the Board governs itself when it comes to its Code of Ethics. “Generally speaking,” said attorney Douglass, “if there is a complaint regarding a Supervisor, it would be the recommendation to bring it to the Board and/or the other Board members and then issue a public reprimand — if voted upon and necessary.” “In closed or open session?” asked District Four rep Bo Toth. “It would be open,” said attorney Douglass. District Three rep Daphne Norton asked if hearsay comes into play. Attorney Douglass said the term “hearsay” is “applicable in a court of law. It is NOT applicable for a Board of Supervisors.”

The Virginia Court of Appeals denied an appeal Tuesday in the former Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority head’s lawsuit against Botetourt County Administrator Gary Larrowe for retaliation and damage to his professional reputation. … Frank Marshall Smith II, who served as the RVBA’s president and CEO until October 2023, was suing Larrowe for intentionally disrupting his contract with the broadband authority and engaging in unlawful retaliation under the state’s Fraud and Abuse Whistle Blower Protection Act, known as FAWPA….The complaint claimed that Larrowe falsely claimed Smith had broken Virginia Freedom of Information Act laws, lied to other members of the board and mismanaged funds from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act….A Roanoke Circuit Court judge ruled Sept. 9, 2024, that the lawsuit had not properly pleaded claims of interference with a contract or a violation of the FAWPA. It also found that Smith’s voluntary resignation negated any claim of retaliation, and it sustained Larrowe’s plea of immunity.

Speaking via mass email Oct. 22, Interim University of Virginia President Paul Mahoney both revealed the existence of such an agreement and also that he had signed it without soliciting any input from the public. With the [rejected] Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education, the University committed to an extended period for feedback and debate. This allowed the community to make known their objections, which Mahoney then addressed in a subsequent public statement. Yet for an agreement that is at least as objectionable as the Compact, the case was completely reversed. Such a blatant rebuff to the precedent set after debates over the Compact insults those who truly believed this University administration was willing to listen to its stakeholders. By working in the shadows, Mahoney and the administration chose to betray the very tenet of transparency required for a public institution of higher education.

The Connecticut Attorney General’s office is urging a state court to establish a significant legal precedent by asserting that all records related to legitimate legislative activities within the General Assembly should be exempt from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This request marks a pivotal moment in the 50-year history of the Act and comes in response to a recent ruling by the Freedom of Information Commission. Attorney General William Tong’s office filed an administrative appeal in Superior Court on Friday, disputing the Commission’s dismissal of the assertion of a constitutional “legislative privilege.” In Tong’s view, the privileges afforded to lawmakers under the Connecticut Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause are fundamental and should be recognized in the context of public records.