Resignation, Severance, and Silence: County Board Faces Transparency Test

Warren County Administrator Brad Gotshall resigned last week under circumstances that have not been fully explained publicly, leaving residents seeking clarity about how the decision was handled and what it means for the county’s financial oversight moving forward.

Brad Gotshall, pictured in a file photo before his resignation as County Administrator.

Following a one-hour closed session on Wednesday, January 28, Board of Supervisors Chair Cheryl Cullers announced that the board had “accepted” Gotshall’s resignation. No public vote was taken, no motion was made, and no additional explanation was offered during the open portion of the meeting.

While personnel matters are often discussed in closed session, the lack of a public record of action has prompted questions about whether proper procedures were followed and how decisions of this magnitude are communicated to the public.

Resignation and Severance

Gotshall’s resignation letter, submitted January 28, cited Section 10-B(C) of his employment agreement. That provision allows the county administrator to resign following a formal or informal suggestion by the board and still receive severance as if terminated without cause.

Under the contract, the severance could total up to six months of salary and benefits, potentially exceeding $113,000, including accrued leave. The payout comes as Warren County continues to address the consequences of multiple delayed audits and ongoing financial strain.

After returning from the closed session, Chair Cullers stated,”So, Mr. Gotshall has tendered his resignation, which we have accepted. And we wish him well in his future endeavors. So, if I would have a motion to adjourn,” Chairman Cullers added. The motion to adjourn by Supervisor Henry was then seconded by Supervisor Carter, followed by a unanimous 5-0 vote to adjournment of the Open meeting.

No motion, second, or recorded vote on the Gotshall resignation occurred in public session.

“We accepted his resignation.” No motion, second, or recorded vote occurred in public session.

What Virginia Law Requires

Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act allows closed meetings for certain personnel matters, including resignations. Section 2.2-3711(A)(1) of the Code of Virginia permits private discussion of the resignation of specific public officers.

However, the statute also draws a clear line. Section 2.2-3712(I) states:
“No vote of any kind shall be taken in a closed meeting. All official votes shall be taken in an open meeting, and the vote shall be recorded in the minutes of the public body.”

Whether a vote or formal consensus occurred, and if so, when, has not been clarified publicly.

“Even if the discussion occurs in closed session, the decision must be made in open session, with a vote,” Megan Rhyne, executive director of the Virginia Coalition for Open Government, said in a prior interview with the Virginia Mercury. “It’s not just about the legal requirement. It’s about public trust and transparency in how decisions are made.”

(Virginia Mercury, Sept. 1, 2023)

Questions About Process

The Board of Supervisors has not publicly addressed whether:

• A vote to accept the resignation was taken at any point
• Supervisors were polled individually outside a public meeting
• All board members were aware of the separation discussions before January 28

Multiple sources familiar with the discussions told the Royal Examiner that County Attorney Jason Ham had been engaged in separation talks with Gotshall prior to the closed session. Those sources said the discussions were initiated at the direction of Chair Cullers and were not preceded by a board vote.

If accurate, such actions raise questions about how authority was exercised and whether the full board was involved at each step. No supervisor has publicly confirmed or denied this account.

As part of our reporting process, we want to ensure that the Board of Supervisors and the County Attorney have had an opportunity to review the draft article and provide any clarification, corrections, or comments they believe would help ensure accuracy and context. The Royal Examiner contacted the Board of Supervisors and County Attorney Jason Ham by email seeking comment prior to publication, but did not receive a response.

Audit Concerns and Internal Tensions

Gotshall’s resignation followed growing concern over Warren County’s delayed audits.

Supervisor Rich Jamieson, recently appointed chair of the Finance and Audit Committee, had requested a written explanation from Gotshall regarding why the county remained behind on its audits and had not completed its 2024 financial report.

In response, Gotshall produced two internal reports.

The first report reportedly detailed serious structural and staffing deficiencies within the county’s finance operations, including understaffing, limited cross-training, outdated systems, and weak internal controls. The report described problems that predated Gotshall’s tenure and portrayed a finance department in need of significant reform.

A second report, submitted later, softened some of those conclusions. Sources said it reduced references to fault or responsibility and reframed the challenges in more neutral terms. While some supervisors viewed the second report as an effort to de-escalate tensions, others questioned why the message had changed.

Gotshall also drafted a letter to the editor summarizing the reports.

Neither report has been released publicly.

Finance Committee Under Review

At its February 3 meeting, the Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider dissolving the Finance/Audit Committee, a move that has raised additional questions about financial oversight.

The committee, comprised of two supervisors and three citizen members appointed by the board chair, has traditionally served as an advisory body on audits, financial reporting, and fiscal policy. It also includes non-voting liaisons such as the county treasurer and commissioner of the revenue.

The Finance Committee, which also serves as the Audit Committee, deals primarily with financial matters referred to it by the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator.

Members of the Finance/Audit Committee say the panel was established to provide independent, nonpartisan advice to the Board of Supervisors on county financial policies, budgeting, and audits, based on information provided by county financial officers. Committee members also dispute suggestions that the committee contributed to audit delays, noting that the committee’s role is limited to reviewing audit materials once they are provided, and that members have requested audit updates for months without receiving sufficient information to do so.

The board approved its 2026 committee assignments on January 20 without naming any supervisors to the Finance Committee. Two weeks later, the committee’s elimination appears on the agenda.

If the committee is dissolved, the board has not explained how its oversight responsibilities would be reassigned or how public accountability would be maintained.

A Moment for Clarity

At a time when Warren County is working to restore financial stability and complete overdue audits, transparency advocates say clear communication is essential.

Since the January 28 closed session, the board has issued no public statement and held no follow-up discussion explaining the administrator’s departure, the severance decision, or the future of financial oversight.

The February 3 meeting, which begins at 1 p.m., may provide an opportunity to address those questions openly.

Local governance experts note that moments of uncertainty can also be opportunities to clarify procedures, strengthen communication, and reaffirm a commitment to open government.

For residents, the central concern is not only what happened but also how county leaders respond next and whether transparency and public trust remain guiding principles of local government.