VDEM Generator Grant
From: Derek Wagner
Tue, Mar 11, 2025
I just wanted to reach out and clear up some concerns/comments made during the BOS meeting last night. I would like to apologize for not being able to attend the meeting in person, but I did watch it virtually.
During the meeting last night, it seems as it was portrayed that some items were requested from us and we never responded. I have attached some screenshots of my email threads with Mr. Cassell. On Feb 10, I emailed the letter stating how we planned on staffing the emergency shelter. It simply states that Jeb Stuart Rescue Squad members would staff it and how they would be notified. In the event we are unable to staff it, we would reach out to the local Red Cross volunteers for their assistance. I also forwarded financial statements and the quotes we obtained. Prior to yesterday, I was under the impression (from previous communications with Mr. Cassell), that we were just waiting on BOS approval and then the grant would be submitted.
Yesterday, around 2:38pm, I received a phone call from Mr. Cassell, after reaching out via text to see if he needed anything else from us, and he stated that the county administrator stated “the staffing was not sufficient enough” and that the grant was not gonna be submitted. If our method of staffing is a concern, I would like to ask, how does Smith River Rescue, a recipient of this grant, staff their shelter? From my understanding, they rely on volunteers.
After watching the meeting last night, I was made aware that there was a request for proof of matching funds. I have yet to receive any form of communication regarding this request.
Although we cut the initial deadline of February 14th close, due to waiting on quotes from vendors and Mr. Cassell being out of the office, we have provided all requested information, prior to the February 14 deadline.
So, in quick summary, we did not wait 2 months to get this information to Mr. Cassell, I just did not send this information to Mr. Cassell last week, and lastly, we have sent everything that was requested.
My intentions are not to make things more contentious, but simply shed a little more light on our side of the story. We do not want to be portrayed as liars and problem starters. We simply want to provide this safe haven for our community.
Thank you for your time!
Sincerely,
[Left Unsigned]
Response from Steve Marshall
Dear Derek,
Thank you for your email and for providing additional context regarding the VDEM Generator Grant. I appreciate your efforts to clarify the situation and your commitment to ensuring the proposed emergency shelter is properly staffed and operational for the community.
After reviewing multiple Board of Supervisors (BOS) meeting videos and reflecting on the discussions surrounding the Envision Critz VDOT grant and the VDEM grant, it is clear that there is confusion about how these matters should be handled. While I understand your frustration, I want to emphasize that the county administration acted in direct accordance with the instructions provided by Board of Supervisors member Andrew Overby.
I was disappointed that you did not reach out to all board members at the inception of this grant process. Moving forward, I encourage all parties to ensure that such requests are communicated clearly and in a timely manner to avoid misunderstandings.
In the spirit of transparency and collaboration, I would like to reiterate the importance of involving all relevant stakeholders in communications, especially when addressing grant-related matters. This ensures that everyone is aligned and working toward the same goals. I appreciate your past efforts to keep me informed when seeking funding, and I hope we can maintain open lines of communication going forward.
Regarding the contention you mentioned, I believe it is important for all of us to work together to avoid the appearance of creating contention, even if that is not our intent. Contention often arises from miscommunication or incomplete information, and it is our shared responsibility to address these issues constructively and professionally. By fostering open dialogue and ensuring all parties are included in key discussions, we can avoid misunderstandings and work more effectively toward our common goals.
Thank you for your dedication to this project and for your willingness to address these concerns. Please let me know if there is anything further I can do to assist you.
Andrew Overby weighs in
Steve,
I simply asked for a grant process/tracking system and policy to be established, with an emphasis on those that require BOS support letters or matching funds that must be approved by the BOS. As of this date, no process or policy has been brought to the board for approval. I have absolutely no issue with any department or agency applying for grants that require no BOS support or funds and have never insinuated or directed that grants should not be applied for in these cases.
This situation has absolutely no relation to the Critz grant. As part of the approval of the resolution for that grant, the BOS required a letter from the group requesting support for the grant as a prerequisite for signing the support letter. Apparently, that order was ignored as no letter has ever been produced after I have requested it multiple times and the grant was applied for anyway. This was the reason that I asked for a grant oversight process to be established.
In the future, I would suggest that before you speak on something that I have asked for, especially to outside entities, that you speak with me directly instead of assuming that you have an understanding of my request.
Regards,
Andrew T. Overby
Response From Steve Marshall
Andrew,
Thank you for your clarification regarding your request for a grant process/tracking system and policy. I understand your emphasis on establishing a clear process for grants that require Board of Supervisors support letters or matching funds, and I agree that such a system would be beneficial for transparency and efficiency.
However, I want to address the core issue at hand. While you did differentiate between the VDEM Generator Grant and the Critz grant during the meeting where the VDEM grant was discussed, this distinction was not communicated until that point. At the previous meeting, where the VDOT/Critz grant was brought up, you issued specific instructions regarding grant handling, but you did not indicate that these instructions applied only to that specific grant or that other grants, like the VDEM grant, should be treated differently.
As a result, staff operated according to the instructions you provided during the first meeting, as they had no reason to believe those instructions were not applicable to all grants requiring BOS involvement. This situation highlights a common cognitive bias known as “the curse of knowledge”—where someone who knows something (in this case, your expectations for how grants should be handled) assumes that others (the staff) also know or should intuitively understand those expectations. Without explicit communication, it is unreasonable to expect staff to anticipate or interpret varying expectations.
Additionally, this ties into what psychologists call the “false consensus effect”—the tendency to overestimate how much others share our beliefs, opinions, or expectations. It appears there was an assumption that staff would naturally understand the VDEM grant should be treated differently, even though this was never explicitly communicated.
Moving forward, I feel that direct and clear communication is essential to avoid misunderstandings. I hope we can work together to ensure that all board members and staff are provided with clear, consistent, and timely guidance to avoid confusion and ensure alignment.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to collaborating on the development of a grant oversight process that meets the needs of the board and the community.
Regards
Steve Marshall
Andrew Overbys response – Note that he mentions both the administrator and critiques her performance. ie. substandard performance. This is a clear violation of widely accepted policy and procedure regarding staff evaluations.
Steve,
Again, you have no idea that I have had other conversations with the county administrator on this topic, so I would suggest that you mind your lane if you do not have all the facts and refrain from attempting to lay blame at my feet. I believe the county administrator is well aware of my contact information, so if requests are unclear I would expect that she would ask for clarification, that is what professionals do.
Regardless, as I stated, no process or policy has been brought to the board for approval, which I feel is the bigger issue here.
Also, please keep your AI generated psycho-babble to yourself. I don’t need to be lectured on more excuses from you to accept substandard performance.
Regards,
Andrew T. Overby
Response by Steve Marshall
As you are aware, the board operates as a collective body, and decisions are made through collaboration and adherence to established policies and processes. If there are concerns about clarity or communication, it is always appropriate to seek clarification directly and professionally.
Regarding your comments about performance and processes, again I encourage you to bring any specific concerns or proposals to the board for discussion and consideration. This is the appropriate forum for addressing policy matters and ensuring that all voices are heard.
That said, your associations and relationships cannot be ignored when assessing your behavior toward employees and other supervisors. Your close quid pro quo relationship with the editor of the Enterprise newspaper, Debbie Hall, is particularly concerning. The fact that you gifted her well over $1,000 of taxpayer dollars raises serious questions about the appropriate use of public resources. Ms. Hall has made it vehemently clear that she strongly disapproves of our administrator and has openly demonstrated that both she and the Enterprise are direct patrons of yours.
Additionally, your ideological alignment with Jane Fulk, your predecessor on the board, is troubling. The nature of your relationship with Ms. Fulk has led many in the public to refer to you as “Jane 2.0,” a moniker that underscores the similarities in your behavior and approach. Ms. Fulk’s history of harassing employees—culminating in the resignation of at least one staff member—and her glaringly apparent goal of removing the county administrator by any means necessary, reflects a pattern of behavior that undermines the stability and professionalism of our county government. Your actions and demeanor suggest a similar disregard for the well-being of staff and the integrity of our operations.
Lastly, I would like to remind you that respectful conduct is essential to fostering a productive and collaborative environment. Violently aggressive behavior and unprofessional displays, such as those witnessed Monday during the board’s closed session meeting, undermine the integrity of our work and do not serve the best interests of the public we represent.
I trust that you will attempt to control your emotions and move forward with a focus on constructive dialogue and a commitment to serving our community effectively. If not, know that I will continue to hold you accountable for your actions and affect—such as violent, aggressive, arrogant, and demanding behavior, publicly if needed. My hope is that you will display greater restraint and professionalism going forward.
Expecting professionalism moving forward
Steve Marshall
Note: This email thread is being published in real time on https://pcvanews.com/ for the purpose of transparency.