Commentary: The Price of Preference: What ‘We Accepted His Resignation’ Really Means

On January 28, 2026, Warren County Board Chair Cheryl Cullers emerged from a closed session and announced: “Mr. Gotshall has tendered his resignation, which we have accepted, and we wish him well in his future endeavors.”

It sounded routine. Professional. Amicable even.

But Mr. Gotshall’s resignation letter tells a different story. It states that he is resigning “pursuant to Section 10-B(C)” of his employment agreement. That specific citation isn’t a formality-it’s the provision that triggers the same effect as termination without cause.

So when Chair Cullers said “Mr. Gotshall has tendered his resignation, which we have accepted”, the Board, in effect, said “We have accepted his forced resignation tendered under threat of termination, acknowledging that we have no cause to fire him, and that we will pay him up to six months’ salary and benefits to go away quietly.”

The public deserves to know why.

What the Documents Reveal

The timeline of Mr. Gotshall’s departure tells you everything you need to know about whether this was voluntary:

On January 22, 2026, the County Attorney, acting on direction from Chair Cullers, informed Mr. Gotshall by phone that he would “likely” be asked to resign or face termination at a special meeting.

On January 27-before the Board held its special meeting to address the matter-the County Attorney sent an email to supervisors in response to questions that I had posed to him, stating: “The Chair indicated to me [on or before Jan 22] that during the special meeting noticed for tomorrow it is likely that a majority of the Board would ask for Mr. Gotshall’s resignation, and if that was not provided vote to terminate him.”

Read that again. Before any Board meeting. Before any formal discussion or authorization. The Chair directed the County Attorney to inform Mr. Gotshall that it was ‘likely’ a majority would demand his resignation or vote to terminate him, a carefully worded ultimatum based on informal consensus building rather than proper Board deliberation. Whether ‘likely’ or certain, conveying a termination ultimatum to the county administrator is a significant action that calls for formal board deliberation.

On January 28, Mr. Gotshall submitted his resignation letter hours prior to the special meeting, specifically citing Section 10-B(C)-the provision for “suggested resignation” that triggers full severance as if he had been terminated without cause.

This is not merely “resigning”. This certainly wasn’t “quitting.” This was a professional forced to choose between resigning quietly or being publicly fired after just four months on the job, with no cause, no evaluation, no due process, and no explanation. He chose to spare himself and the County the spectacle of a public termination vote.

The employment agreement is clear: severance is only payable when termination is “without cause.” Cause is defined specifically as: (i) failure or neglect to substantially perform duties after being given notice and opportunity to cure; (ii) willful and serious misconduct that is injurious to the County after being given demand to cease; (iii) conviction of a felony or other crime injurious to the County’s reputation; (iv) willful and material breach of obligations after opportunity to cure; or (v) moral turpitude, dishonesty, theft, disloyalty, or unethical business conduct. By accepting the resignation, the Board implicitly acknowledged that none of these grounds for cause existed.

So if there was no defined cause for termination, what were the reasons? And why wouldn’t the Board members who had (‘likely’) planned to request his resignation and vote to terminate him if he didn’t explain their reasons publicly?

Closed Session Used As a Shield

Before entering the closed session on January 28, I stated clearly on the record:

“The public deserves to know why we’re spending $113,000 in severance after hiring this administrator just 4 months ago through a professional search that took 5 months and cost $34,500. The circumstances leading to this situation, the justification for this expense, and the replacement plan are matters of public accountability that should be discussed in open session, not hidden behind closed doors. The closed session under the personnel exemption is for protection of the employee, not for discussing reasons, costs, and replacement options in closed session.”

The personnel exemption in Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act exists to protect employees from having their performance, conduct, or personal matters discussed publicly. It does not exist to shield elected officials from explaining their decisions to taxpayers. FOIA statute and FOIA Advisory Council opinions make it crystal clear that confidential information is very narrowly defined, and that deliberation belongs in public.

After the closed session, I expected the Board to discuss the circumstances, costs, and path forward in open session as I had requested. The majority were not agreeable to do that. When another supervisor and I indicated we wanted public discussion, we were told it wasn’t part of the special meeting parameters and might violate meeting policy, weak excuses that weren’t backed up with actual citations.

I should have pressed harder in that moment. I should have insisted on the transparency I had stated was a matter of public accountability. The moment passed, and I failed to fight hard enough for the public discussion that should have happened.

But my failure doesn’t absolve the majority of their responsibility. They drove this outcome. They’re spending this money. And they owe the public an explanation.

The Transparency Failure

Many people expected the Board to vote on a matter of such importance. Votes create clear public records of who stands where on consequential decisions. But this situation was made murky by the process that was put in motion before any Board meeting about it. The majority consensus was built outside of meetings, resulting in a specific action by the County Attorney: initiating the ‘resign or terminate’ discussion with Mr. Gotshall before any formal Board notice, meeting, or action. By the time the special meeting occurred, the intended result had already been obtained. A vote to ‘accept the resignation’ tells the public nothing about which supervisors wanted to force him out-that’s the point. A transparent Board doesn’t obscure matters like this.

At a minimum, the Board should have stated publicly: ‘We accept Mr. Gotshall’s resignation as tendered pursuant to Section 10-B(C) of his employment agreement, which represents a suggested resignation under circumstances where no cause for termination exists.’

That statement would have clarified the nature of the resignation-that it was forced, not voluntary. It would have been a courtesy to the public who must pay for this decision. It would have been a courtesy to Mr. Gotshall, whose professional reputation is being damaged by false narratives that he ‘quit’ to collect severance.

The Damage of Silence

When elected officials refuse to explain their decisions, citizens fill the vacuum with their own conclusions. On social media, Mr. Gotshall is being called a “convicted felon” who “quit to get $113,000.” These claims are both false and cruel.

As part of the professional national search process that brought Mr. Gotshall to Warren County, he underwent comprehensive national, state, and local criminal background checks conducted by a professional executive recruiting firm. He has no criminal record whatsoever.

Mr. Gotshall’s own words show a professional trying to handle a difficult situation with dignity: “I do not wish to cause debate among the Supervisors regarding a termination vote in an open forum, with opportunity for my own commentary. Offering a resignation would save from this public display and further allow the County to hire my successor under a cleaner, more positive landscape.”

These are not the words of someone gaming the system. These are the words of someone forced to choose between resignation and public humiliation-and choosing to take the high road.

The Board members’ silence allows false narratives to flourish. If supervisors had explained their non-cause reasons publicly, at least the record would be clear. Instead, a dedicated public servant’s reputation is being destroyed as long as those who forced him out hide behind “closed session confidentiality.”

Connecting the Dots

Let me make this clear for Warren County citizens:

• The Chair announced that the Board “accepted his resignation”
• His resignation was explicitly “pursuant to Section 10-B(C)”-the suggested resignation provision
• The County Attorney’s email confirms a majority planned to “…ask for his resignation, and if that was not provided, vote to terminate him”
• Section 10-B(C) triggers the same severance as termination without cause
• Severance is only payable when there is no cause for termination

Connect those dots: This was a forced resignation based on preference, not necessity. Not performance. Not misconduct. Not cause. Just a new Board Chair and majority that wanted a different administrator than the one the previous majority hired four months ago.

The cost to taxpayers: approximately $113,000 in severance plus the $34,500 spent on the professional search equals $148,000 for four months of county administration. Add to that the County Attorney costs for handling the “resign or be terminated” discussions and all subsequent attorney costs of the separation and hiring of a replacement. Whatever this comes to, this is the price of preference.

The Questions That Remain

What were the real reasons for forcing out a county administrator after just four months when no cause for termination existed?

I cannot relay what I heard in the closed session – closed session confidentiality prevents me from repeating specific discussions. What I can say is what anybody can infer: that the reasons discussed did not rise to the level of cause defined in the employment agreement – we know this because the Board accepted his resignation pursuant to Section 10-B(C), which only applies when no cause exists. But Chair Cullers and the supervisors who constituted the majority referenced by the County Attorney in conveying Mr. Gotshall’s “likely” options (i.e., resign or be terminated) can and should explain their own reasons.

Why did they decide to force him out? What non-cause reasons justified this expense and turmoil? What does this say about Warren County as an employer? Will a professional recruitment process be used for his replacement?

These questions matter beyond this one situation. What message does this send to future qualified candidates across all county leadership ranks? Who would want to work for Warren County after watching a professional administrator with experience managing $100+ million budgets be forced out after four months for no cause because a Board majority changed?

We spent five months conducting a national search, garnering 40 applicants. Our first choice declined the offer. When the second-ranked candidate, Mr. Gotshall, accepted, the now-Chair voted against his contract before he even started. Four months later, after she gained the Chair and a majority, he’s gone.

This isn’t about one person. This is about whether Warren County values stability, professionalism, and fair treatment, or whether county administration is just another political spoil to be divvied up when political power changes hands.

One important commitment from the closed session I can share: I asked directly whether there was a pre-identified replacement candidate, and every supervisor said no. All are committed to conducting a professional recruitment process. The public should hold them to this commitment.

Demand Answers

Your Board of Supervisors owes you an explanation. Ask them for their own reasoning for this non-cause decision and expenditure, and what their plan is to hire a qualified county administrator through a standard professional recruitment process.

Contact them and ask them.

• Chair Cheryl Cullers: cullersc@warrencountyva.gov
• Vice Chair Tony Carter: tcarter@warrencountyva.gov
• Supervisor Hugh Henry: hhenry@warrencountyva.gov
• Supervisor John Stanmeyer: jstanmeyer@warrencountyva.gov
• Supervisor Rich Jamieson: rjamieson@warrencountyva.gov

Demand transparency. Demand accountability. Demand answers.