Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Boards And Commissions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate request for Board of Health member to step down after 50B protective order
Summary
Stokes County commissioners discussed a civil protective order (50B) and related criminal charges against a Board of Health member, weighing due process against calls for a voluntary resignation or leave; county attorney advised the board on legal steps and a likely court schedule.
Get email alerts on the Boards And Commissions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stokes County commissioners on Aug. 25 discussed whether to press a Board of Health member to resign or take a leave after the member became subject to a temporary 50B protective order and related criminal charges.
County Attorney Jennifer told the board a 50B is a civil protective order and that criminal proceedings carry a higher burden of proof. She said a Sept. 8 court date is set but that attorneys frequently seek continuances and that a resolution could take until October or November: “With a 50B, there are considerations at what’s called the ex parte stage… the judge did have to make findings on the record that an act of domestic violence was committed,” she said, noting the matter is still early in the legal process.
Several commissioners said the allegation is serious and urged caution; others emphasized due process. One commissioner said they would accept a voluntary resignation or a temporary leave if the member offered it. The board did not take formal removal action at the meeting and asked staff to prepare appropriate next steps and communications, including whether to request a resignation with the understanding that the member could be reappointed if cleared.
The board’s discussion clarified options available to the county: asking for a voluntary resignation, accepting a leave of absence, or pursuing removal only after following statutory notice and opportunity-to-respond procedures. Commissioners also noted that the board could pursue a policy addressing appointment standards in the future.
Next steps: staff and counsel will follow up on possible outreach to the member and report back to the board; no formal action to remove the member was taken on Aug. 25.

