Commentary: Warren County’s Data Center Moment Deserves Open Deliberation

Warren County is in the sights of the data center industry. It is now apparently not “just a distraction”. I have said that data centers occupy scarce industrial-zoned land at a fraction of the employment density that manufacturing tenants would generate, threaten our groundwater, and would permanently alter the rural character that defines this county (see here). If my negative outlook on data centers has been subtle up to this point because I’ve concentrated on pointing to what Warren County should do instead of what it shouldn’t do, I am now stating unequivocally: I am opposed to data centers in Warren County.

The public has a right to know how decisions this consequential are being made — including what legal advice the Board is receiving and acting on. During the same period that data center pressure has been building, I have been in an ongoing battle to push Board transparency policy in that direction. Instead, it has gone the other way. (See here and here.)

The Law Is Clear: Policy Discussion Belongs in Public

Virginia’s FOIA law requires that any exemption from public access be narrowly construed — small and specific, not broad and sweeping. In 2007, the Virginia FOIA Advisory Council applied that standard to a case involving the Town of Front Royal (here). It held that the legal matters exemption:

“…may not be used to justify closed meetings involving more general issues, even though those issues eventually may have legal consequences.”

The fact that a policy might someday have legal consequences does not make it a legal matter suitable for closed session. Policy deliberation belongs in public — even when it involves legal questions, and even when an attorney has opinions about it. The public is entitled to understand the basis on which the Board makes its decisions, including the legal pros, cons, and risks.

The Board’s Actions on Transparency

Following its repeal of the Legal Services Transparency Policy on January 8, 2026, the Board went further. On April 22, 2026, it amended its Meeting Policies and Procedures 3-2 to add:

“Board Members shall not disclose matters discussed in closed meetings, or communications from the County Attorney other than those stated by the County Attorney in a public meeting without the consent of the Board of Supervisors.”

The BOS policy now states that anything the County Attorney says or writes is now formally off-limits to public disclosure unless the Board majority agrees or he says it in a public meeting. I proposed an amendment limiting the restriction to communications actually protected by attorney-client privilege — language that would have brought the policy into conformance with the narrow construction FOIA requires (watch here, starting at 2:43). The County Attorney opposed it:

“If you put limitations to this, then you will not get what you want from it.”

My amendment failed 3-2. The unlimited version passed 3-2. A policy without limiting principles is a policy designed to operate without them.

A Chilling Effect on Public Deliberation

This policy creates a perverse tension. Any communication from the County Attorney — legal, administrative, operational — can now be placed beyond public view. I find myself reluctant to involve him in communications, precisely because doing so may close off public access to the information related to the Board’s decisions without me being accused of violating the Board’s “nondisclosure” policy.

We have already seen where this leads (here). During the agritourism regulation hearing, the County Attorney interrupted supervisors asking questions and tried to move any “substantial questions” into closed session. The 2007 FOIA Advisory Council opinion says that it is not permissible absent a specific legal transaction or dispute. The new policy makes that kind of pressure easier to apply and harder to resist — and it cannot be permitted to become the norm as the Board navigates the data center issue.

The Stakes

As Warren County faces pressure from the data center industry, the Board will be making decisions that define this county for generations. Legal counsel will inevitably be involved. Under the policy as adopted, any of those communications could be kept from public view, not just those that are legitimately attorney-client privileged.

I have submitted a formal request for an advisory opinion to the Virginia FOIA Advisory Council on whether this policy is consistent with Virginia law.

Whatever your view of data centers, you are entitled to watch this Board make its decisions in full public view. Transparency is not a procedural nicety. It is the condition under which consequential decisions get made in the open, where citizens can evaluate the arguments made during the deliberations, and bad ones get caught before they become permanent. Deliberations made in the open can be questioned, corrected, and improved. Deliberations made behind a wall of “blanket” attorney-client privilege cannot — and by the time the consequences arrive, it will be too late to change them.

By Richard Jamieson, Ph.D. | North River District Supervisor