The day-delayed Warren County Board of Supervisors work session on Wednesday, November 12th, the day after the Veterans Day holiday, got off to a non-contentious start with a presentation by the Warren County Department of Social Services (WCDSS) team focused on providing Adult Services, including Protective Services, to seniors in the community.
After all, who wants to see handicapped or aging adults in the community being taken advantage of by predatory hustlers? Not many, hopefully.
After Vice-Chairman John Stanmeyer opened the 6 p.m. work session for Chairman “Jay” Butler, whom it was said was out of the county on a preplanned trip, WCDSS Director Jon Martz introduced the Adult Services team of Supervisor Brenda Norman, Adult Service Specialist Audra Smelser, and two APF Specialists, Natalia Garfola and Megan Vardiman. Martz is welcomed to the podium at the 00:49-second mark of the linked County video, followed by the team presentation on exactly what they do, beginning at the 01:43 video mark.
WC DSS Director Jon Martz introduces his Adult Services and Protective Services team of Brenda Norman, Audra Smelser, Natalia Garfola, and Megan Vardiman to the county board. Below, an introductory graphic from the team’s presentation. Royal Examiner Photos Roger Bianchini
WCDSS Director Martz lauded the Adult Services team for their work in making state-recognized improvements to Warren County’s Adult Services program. The presentation seemed well-received by the board. Of course, one might note that they did not directly ask for program funding yet; instead, they explained what the program does with its funding.
Following that work session opening topic was County Finance Director Alisa Scott introducing a remotely connected “Engagement Team” from the proposed “Cash Reconciliation Services” provider, “BerryDunn”. The fact that they were being introduced to help the county government reconcile financial and audit issues from Fiscal Year 2024, which ended on June 30, 2024, indicated a potentially ongoing problem. Scott described the company’s track record on such issues and a basic familiarity with the County’s financial and cash situation.
“BerryDunn has submitted a one-time proposal for engagement to complete these cash reconciliations. Their familiarity with our situation, coupled with their proven record of accuracy and timeliness, makes them a strong partner to ensure we progressively move forward to close out the FY-24 audit successfully,” Finance Director Scott told the county’s elected officials.
County Finance Director Alisa Scott introduces the ‘BerryDunn’ group, presented as the leading candidate to aid the County in finalizing its FY-24 pre-audit finances. Below, Scott and new County Administrator Bradley Gotshall are at the administrative staff table. County Attorney Jason Ham was not present at his usual seat to hear the debate on his performance related to recommendations to the board’s adjournment into Closed Session, and related costs.
Asked if there was a projected completion date on the work, Scott noted, “Everyone knows that the auditors are coming back January 12th. So, the goal is to get it done as soon as possible. But we have not confirmed a solid date of when the FY-24 cash reconciliation would be done.” Finance Director Scott went on to note that while no contract had yet been extended with BerryDunn, they, “are familiar with the situation … They’ve done it before, they are the crisis management team, and they’ve had access to specific files. So, they can see what progress has been made. So, they know the gap they need to fill to complete the project. But we still need to work out a completion date.”
“I don’t want to see this to be a continuing problem or a recurring problem,” South River District Supervisor Cheryl Cullers said (starting at 49:20 video mark). She suggested that whoever was hired to be the County’s “Cash Reconciliation Services” provider work closely with County financial staff to prevent the issue from becoming an expensive and ongoing one for the county government and its taxpayers.
The BerryDunn team, comprised of Consulting Managers Kristin West, Barry Goodwin, and Engagement Partner Katy Balukas, made a good case for their hiring, referencing the company’s work with other municipalities struggling with financial issues, as well as the Scott-referenced general familiarity with Warren County’s specific situation.
A hint at Berry Dunn’s hiring was given by Vice-Chairman Stanmeyer when he thanked the remotely connected BerryDunn team for their presentation, concluding, “We look forward to working with you.”
Vice-Chair John Stanmeyer led the meeting in Chairman ‘Jay’ Butler’s absence.
Not eye to eye
But the final two topics indicated a split on internal matters brought before the board by North River District Supervisor Richard Jamieson. Those topics as listed in the agenda packet were “Legal Services Transparency and Review Policy” and “Industrial Scale Ground Water Protection”. Jamieson has recently brought the issue of the County’s legal advice on going into Closed Session and forwarding a countywide code against businesses using groundwater extensively.
On the first of those regarding legal advice and adjournment to Closed Sessions on County Attorney Jason Ham’s advice that Jamieson has raised, the Agenda Packet noted this perspective from the presenting member:
EXPLANATION & SUMMARY:
“This memorandum proposes reforms to Warren County’s practices regarding closed sessions and legal advisory procedures to ensure full compliance with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and to enable informed Board decision-making. Recent experiences demonstrate that current practices can inhibit Board members’ ability to fulfill their duties by limiting access to written legal analysis necessary for understanding statutory matters, while simultaneously enabling votes to be influenced by verbal legal advice and/or assertions made in closed sessions that may not meet FOIA’s strict criteria.”
Time for discussion on legal advice
After presenting his perspective on necessary action, Jamieson said, “If there are any questions, I think this is the time for discussion (57:27 video mark). After a brief silence, Supervisor Cullers began that discussion:
The 4-member board, minus its chairman, was largely in agreement on the first two work session topics, but not so much on the last two introduced by Supervisor Richard Jamieson.
“I’ve got to be honest, I’m uncomfortable with this whole thing if our attorney has not looked at it. I have never felt that I was asked to go into a closed session (without cause). We vote on it. If we don’t want to go into closed session, we don’t go into a closed session,” Cullers said of the existing process of going into closed session from an open meeting at the county attorney’s suggestion, adding, “I’m not a very trusting person in general until I get to know people. But our attorney, we’ve had a lot to deal with just in my short time here, and I’ve been here six years, that without legal representation and consultation, we wouldn’t be able to maneuver in it.
“And I don’t like to go into closed session if we don’t have to, but there are times you have to discuss things in closed because if you discuss them — It’s not that we’re trying to keep the residents of the area in the blind. But you can’t necessarily tip your hand to the people who might work against you in legal matters,” Cullers said of the reasons for calling into closed session on a variety of matters with potential legal implications.
We will note here that County Attorney Jason Ham was not present for this work session to respond to any of Jamieson’s points on his past advice to them in this regard.
Cullers went on to say this about the current county attorney: “Because we are talking specifically about the lawyer I have dealt with and you have,” with a nod to Jamieson, “And he has a stellar background, and is very proud of his legal history and his accomplishments as an attorney. And to make it sound like he is taking us illegally into closed session is, it’s just not fair. I don’t think he has … He’s trying to protect our best interests with his expertise.”
Cullers ended these comments with a telling perspective on her colleague Jamieson, who brought the matter forward. “Did you get his involvement in this at all? Or is this like the well ordinance that you didn’t include the planning commission on either, or the planning staff?”
“I didn’t ask him to do this,” Jamieson responded to input from the county attorney, adding, “This is a policy that would exert more oversight over him.”
“But it all has to do with legal, and you have no legal background,” Cullers reminded her North River District colleague.
“I did not say the costs were exorbitant,” Jamieson added of one aspect of his complaint about the county attorney’s legal advice on Closed Sessions being costly. The North River supervisor then accused Cullers of “making projections” on his initiative, accusing him of things he has not done. “And I think you’re using a lot of projection and making inferences, saying that I’m inferring. I just mentioned what the cost was and that the per-capita costs are significant,” Jamieson countered, drawing a crossing line between the meaning of “significant costs” and “exorbitant costs”.
“Well, that’s my interpretation of what you said,” Cullers countered of Jamieson’s word use as suggesting unnecessary costs were being incurred on the board by the closed session callings.
“You’re interpretations are to say ‘exorbitant’ when I just mentioned a number,” Jamieson countered.
When Hugh Henry entered the conversation, saying, “I would say that costing-wise, because we are a small,” at which point Jamieson cut him off, stating, “This has nothing to do with costs.” Henry continued to make his point, “We were discussing costs, and $400,000 is a lot of money per capita. And per-capita costs seem high because as a small county … because of land mass and population we’re going to suffer a little bit per-capita in comparison to the bigger counties,” Henry observed, adding, “If we’ve got 24 meetings a year when we need legal, and Winchester has 24 meetings a year that they have to have legal, they may cost exactly the same. But per-capita costs because Frederick County is a bigger land mass … And with fairness we suffer as being a small community that way that we do because we’re going to inherit a higher per-capita cost. And it’s not really anybody’s fault, it’s just the way it is.”
Jamieson concluded that quarterly reports on legal costs are reasonable, “On a department like that. I don’t think it’s any kind of insult.”
Supervisor Stanmeyer then said he believed it was within the board’s right, “to exert some influence on the scope of services” to the county and to make sure, regarding closed meetings, that the County was operating within the scope of FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) guidelines.
It appears the board will have to continue to work towards finding a common ground that the “Legal Transparency and Review” policy initiative suggests implementing which does not ignore the legal staff’s opinion on FOIA matters taken individually, but also doesn’t ignore the board’s understanding of the legally suggested path in and out of closed session.
About that business groundwater usage
And finally, before adjournment was the “Industrial Scale Groundwater” issue. The Chair called the topic at the 01:18:55 mark of the linked County video. Supervisor Jamieson again began the discussion. “I just want to know if there are any next steps. We have a couple of Industrial rezonings coming up. And from the time I was running for office, telling people, you know, I see the Comprehensive Plan, I see our Industrial Corridor. And right off the bat, there were people who had a lot of consternation about one of the rezonings. I see it there, I know it’s in the Comprehensive Plan, I know it’s been there a long time. But at the same time, we do have a groundwater issue.”
Jamieson said he had mixed feelings about proceeding with Industrial Corridor development, while at the same time wanting to protect the county’s groundwater. “There are going to be people on all sides of this,” Jamieson reasoned, adding to his colleagues, “Is there interest as a board to keep this going and find the next step, or not. I guess it’s just time. Let’s decide whether we’re going to do it.”
Fork District Supervisor Henry said he was not for such a far-reaching ordinance without additional planning staff involvement. He worried that, as proposed, it would negatively impact not only large-scale industrial operations, but also smaller businesses with significantly less water usage than Data Centers around which this discussion was launched recently. Henry pointed to a conversation with Shenandoah Valley Golf Club owner Richard Runyon, indicating his worry over such an ordinance’s impact on small businesses, including golf clubs.
“No pun intended but I don’t think the well ordinance the way it is will hold water,” Supervisor Henry said in reply to Jamieson’s call for discussion. He suggested a potential alternate course of action to what was being presented. “I’d say, HEY, any industrial in the corridor has to use municipality services. And then they wouldn’t be allowed to drill a well …
“I think I understand what you’re doing with this, with your definition of industrial well, which we’re recognizing isn’t Residential and not Ag (Agricultural), it’s for business, so we’ll just classify it as industrial. But that would include the fire station, the airport, and all the little country stores. And even if we grandfathered them in and didn’t inflict anything on them, I believe the original ordinance showed some stuff they needed to do. And I’m pretty sure we’d get some major kickback from that.”
The agenda packet presented this intro on the topic:
“EXPLANATION & SUMMARY:
“With the understanding that the statutory analysis is still unavailable, the board will discuss the groundwater protection matter in principle, given the presentations that have been made, and indicate what next steps, if any, the Board wishes to take to advance some form of initiative.”
As noted above, Supervisor Henry suggested that with such a far-reaching and possibly unintended impact on smaller businesses that use groundwater to some extent, but not near the amount this conversation and ordinance initiative seems intended to target, the board hand this one over to the Planning Department and Commission for further review.
And as with the “Legal Services Transparency and Review” initiative, we’ll see how this one progresses toward 2026.
Click here to watch the Warren County Board of Supervisors Work Session of November 12, 2025.
link
More Stories
DG COMP rejects legal professional privilege for in-house counsel
Local Attorney Explains Workers’ Compensation Cases
FCA to have extensive powers over lawyers in AML role