Steve Marshall, Blue Ridge District Supervisor, Patrick County – 3.16.25
Debunking the Double Standard: A Contrast Between Past Precedent and Present Hypocrisy
Recent accusations leveled against me in The Enterprises March 12, 2025, article (“A Quorum of Patrick County Board of Supervisors Members Attended…”) are not only factually incorrect but also deeply hypocritical when contrasted with the publications own reporting from May 5, 2022. Let me set the record straight.
The 2022 Precedent: When Supervisors Attended a Private Event Without Issue
In May 2022, Debbie Hall now Editor of the Enterprise reported that a majority of the Patrick County Board of Supervisors attended a private, unadvertised event at Primland Resort related to the sale of the local hospital. At the time, supervisors—including Clayton Kendrick and Denise Stirewalt—took deliberate steps to avoid violating FOIA:
They dispersed themselves, sitting at separate tables.
Some stayed “inside and outside” the venue to avoid forming a quorum.
They consulted attorneys in advance and were assured their attendance was legal as long as they did not discuss county business.
Notably, the May 5, 2022, article quoted Kendrick stating, “We did try to stay at opposite tables, and some of us were inside and outside.” Stirewalt echoed this language verbatim, emphasizing their precautions. Despite the optics, The Enterprise and its now editor, Debbie Hall, accepted their explanation at face value. No accusations of FOIA violations were made.
The 2025 Double Standard: Fabrications and Selective Outrage
Fast forward to 2025. I attended two public meetings—the EDA and WPPDC—as an observer. Unlike the 2022 Primland event, these meetings were openly advertised, and I participated in neither discussions nor votes. Yet Kendrick and The Enterprise now claim my presence constituted a FOIA violation. Lets dissect the hypocrisy:
In 2022, supervisors relied on legal counsel to justify their attendance at a “private” event. Today, Kendrick ignores Virginia FOIA law (§ 2.2-3701), which explicitly states that a quorum is only formed when members discuss or transact their own boards business. No such discussion occurred at the EDA or WPPDC meetings. Even WPPDC Chairman Jim Adams confirmed, “No one knew or was told what Marshalls purpose was in attending the meeting.”
Fabricated Accusations:
Kendrick claims he told me to leave the EDA meeting—a conversation that never happened. This falsehood exposes his intent to manufacture a narrative. Contrast this with 2022, when supervisors openly coordinated their attendance at Primland without backlash.
Contrived Language:
Both Kendrick and Stirewalt used the phrase “inside and outside” in 2022 to describe their dispersal tactics. The repetition suggests a coordinated effort to manipulate public perception.
The Enterprises Role
Debbie Hall, who understood FOIA nuances in 2022, now publishes Kendricks accusations uncritically. Where is the scrutiny applied to his claims? Why no mention of the 2022 precedent, which directly contradicts his arguments?
The Real Issue: Silencing Dissent and Curtailing Transparency
This is not about FOIA—its about control. Certain individuals do not want me attending meetings where I gather information to better serve Patrick County. Their goal is to:
Pressure me into avoiding public meetings, violating my own rights under the Open Public Meetings Act.
Control the narrative by communicating through The Enterprise instead of engaging directly.
Distract from substantive issues, such as economic development and transparency, by manufacturing controversy.
I have documented proof including audio recordings and minutes from the EDA meeting (linked below) showing no discussion of county business and no admonishments by Clayton Kendrick. The evidence speaks for itself. James Houchins, the EDA director speaks briefly warning the three supervisors to conduct themselves appropriately
A Call for Consistency and Accountability
To Debbie Hall and The Enterprise: Hold yourself to the same standard applied in 2022. Report facts, not fabrications. Misleading narratives and sensationalist journalism might have a place on larger stages, but they have no legitimate role in Patrick County.
To my colleagues: Stop trying to weaponize FOIA and Virginia Open Meetings Laws in an attempt to suppress participation. Lets focus on serving Patrick County—not staging political theatrics.
As for myself: I will continue attending open public meetings, advocating for our community, and exposing hypocrisy if need be.
Links:
EDA Meeting Minutes – LINK
Virginia FOIA § 2.2-3701 – LINK
The Enterprise Article, May 5, 2022 – Text / Web
The Enterprise Article, March 12, 2025 – Text / Web
EDA Meeting Recordings 1 and 2:
Additional Information
Virginia Quorum Law
Q:
Is there a law in virginia related to the following statement.
Three board members attending a different authoritys meeting where they are not conducting their own boards business does not constitute a quorum for their board, as a quorum requires a specific number of members to be present and transacting business for their official body.
A:
In Virginia, the rules governing quorums and meetings of public bodies, including boards and authorities, are primarily found in the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (VFOIA), specifically under § 2.2-3700 et seq. of the Code of Virginia. The VFOIA defines what constitutes a meeting and a quorum for public bodies.
The specific provision relevant to your question is § 2.2-3701, which defines key terms, including “meeting” and “quorum.” According to § 2.2-3701, a “meeting” is defined as the gathering of a quorum of a public body to discuss or transact public business. A “quorum” is the number of members required to be present to transact business, as defined by the public bodys governing documents or applicable law.
If three board members attend a different authoritys meeting and are not conducting their own boards business, this would not constitute a quorum or a meeting of their own board under the VFOIA. This is because they are not gathered to discuss or transact business for their own board. The key factor is whether the members are conducting business for their own board, not merely being present at another meeting.
To summarize:
§ 2.2-3701 defines “meeting” and “quorum.”
A quorum requires the presence of a specific number of members to transact business for their own board.
Attending another authoritys meeting without conducting their own boards business does not constitute a quorum or meeting under the VFOIA.