Transparency vs. Closed Doors: Warren County Policy Debate Heads Into the Spotlight

Warren County Board of Supervisors member Dr. Rich Jamieson (North River District) joined me in the Royal Examiner studio this week to talk about what’s quickly become one of the most talked-about issues in local government: transparency, specifically, when it comes to legal advice and closed meetings.

In December, the Board passed a new Legal Services Transparency and Review Policy, aimed at improving access to legal analysis behind public decisions. It passed 3–2, late in the evening, at the final meeting of the year, without much public attention.

Now, it’s back on the agenda, and some supervisors may be looking to revise or even undo the policy behind closed doors.

What the Policy Does

The policy focuses on three basic reforms:

1. Written Legal Work Products
   When the Board is considering ordinances, zoning amendments, or other public legislation, legal advice should be documented in writing, unless clearly exempt under Virginia FOIA. This helps the public and board members understand the legal reasoning behind major decisions.
2. More Specific Closed Session Language
   Closed sessions are legal in Virginia for certain purposes, such as discussing active litigation or specific legal transactions. But the policy reinforces that general topics, such as policies and procedures, shouldn’t be handled behind closed doors. The language echoes prior rulings from the Virginia FOIA Council and Attorney General opinions.
3. Quarterly Legal Spending Reports
   The policy also requires the County Administrator to provide regular reports on where legal service dollars are going. With Warren County’s legal services budget topping $423,000—double that of nearby Shenandoah County on a per-capita basis—Jamieson argues that more transparency is needed.

Why the Pushback?

Despite its narrow passage, the policy may now face resistance from within the new board. One potential flashpoint? A vaguely worded closed session scheduled for January 8, described only as being about “board policy and procedures.” That’s the exact kind of catch-all language the new policy is meant to avoid.

“The work of the public should be done in public,” Jamieson said. “That should be the general rule, and the exception should be from that. But right now, it feels like it’s the other way around.”

Past Events Fuel the Push for Reform

Jamieson said his concerns about FOIA compliance first sharpened in July 2025, when a public hearing on agritourism regulations was abruptly interrupted by the county attorney, who urged the supervisors to hold another closed session on the topic. At the time, he didn’t remember having previously discussed the matter in private and grew increasingly uneasy afterward.

After research, including review of FOIA statutes and a 2007 FOIA Council opinion involving the Town of Front Royal, Jamieson concluded that too many legislative discussions were happening behind closed doors.

“FOIA law is pretty clear,” he said. “Legal advice on potential litigation or transactions can be confidential, but advice on public lawmaking should be public.”

A Wider Trend Toward Openness?

Across Virginia and the country, transparency is becoming a rallying cry. Citizens are demanding more clarity in how decisions are made and how public money is spent.

That’s why, Jamieson said, he’s written a series of articles explaining each section of the policy and why it matters not just for lawyers or politicians, but for anyone who cares about good government.

“It’s not about pointing fingers. It’s about raising the bar.”

The public seems to agree. Letters to the editor, social media comments, and even casual conversations all echo a common sentiment: “We have the right to know.”

The Board of Supervisors will meet on Thursday, January 8. Whether the transparency policy stands or is revised behind closed doors remains to be seen.

But one thing’s clear: the public is watching.