Surry County’s Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 on Dec. 5 to adopt revisions to its code of ethics that would allow the board to punish members who disclose confidential information without the majority’s authorization.

There are 55 allowed exceptions in Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act that specify when governing bodies can enter closed sessions. Prior to Dec. 5, the ethics code had specified only that members “shall respect the confidentiality of information concerning the property, personnel or affairs of the county” and “shall neither disclose confidential information without proper legal authorization, nor use such information to advance their personal, financial, or other private interests.”

The change Board of Supervisors Chairman Robert Elliott, Vice Chairman Breyon Pierce and Bacon’s Castle District Supervisor Walter Hardy voted in favor of making to the policy strikes “shall neither disclose confidential information without proper legal authorization” and specifies that “documents, information, and discussions from a closed session, attorney-client privileged communication and other confidential information shall not be disclosed without the approval of the board.”

If such information is made public without authorization, the added language allows the board to “vote to either authorize the disclosure or reform the confidentiality and/or claim privilege.” In either case, the board “may, in its discretion, sanction or censure a member for improper disclosure of confidential or privileged information.”

Surry District Supervisor Timothy Calhoun and Dendron District Supervisor Amy Drewry cast the two dissenting votes.

County Attorney Lola Perkins had recommended the change in November, stating Surry’s ethics code hadn’t been updated since it was first adopted on March 5, 2020.

Perkins said the ethics code would not carve out any additional closed meeting exemptions to FOIA, which can only be authorized by the General Assembly.

“Closed-session matters are confidential,” Perkins said. “They are in closed session because they have met one of very specifically set out exemptions in Virginia code for being able to go into closed session.”

Perkins, as county attorney, is tasked with determining what matters are allowed to be discussed in closed session.

“I approve of 95% of the code of ethics as it’s written and the changes,” Drewry said, while characterizing the added language referencing closed sessions as “punitive and retaliatory.”

Hardy disagreed, stating at the end of the meeting during board member comments that “it’s nobody’s intent to target anybody.”

The added language, in Drewry’s words, “grants broad authority to penalize members on a subjective basis with the consent of a majority.”

“Closed session is still the public’s business even if we’re having private discussions and although no minutes are taken we are free to discuss openly matters that may be sensitive,” Drewry said.

Drewry said a closed session had resulted seven months ago after she and other board members received a message from County Administrator Melissa Rollins applauding the board’s 3-2 passage of the county’s $69.8 million 2024-25 budget.

Drewry described the email as “insinuating racism” as her and Calhoun’s motivations for voting against the budget. Rollins, who did not immediately respond to The Smithfield Times’ request for comments on the referenced message, had written, “I can respect everyone’s prerogative to vote the way desired but fair is fair. … When the information is not read or you don’t fully grasp it please do not blame staff and put out a false narrative. This has been done over and over and it is simply wrong. … I know that because we have African Americans in leadership positions we are discriminated on big time. Fact! But we will continue to do our job with our elected leaders who will continue to … make bold and courageous decisions rather than the same 10 people who can have an opinion but just don’t like the way we look and who are making improvements to the county.”

The Smithfield Times obtained a copy of the referenced May 20 message from a source other than Drewry. 

Drewry, speaking ahead of the Dec. 5 vote, said her concerns about Rollins’ message were “dismissed, ignored and minimized by fellow board members who refused to take any action to correct the false accusation.”