Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Surry County board approves tightened confidentiality language in ethics code after contested debate
Summary
The Surry County Board of Supervisors approved an amendment to its code of ethics expanding confidentiality to explicitly cover closed‑session and attorney‑client privileged communications and allowing the board to sanction or censure members for improper disclosures; one supervisor voted no and several called for a work session for further review.
The Surry County Board of Supervisors voted Nov. 7 to amend its code of ethics to expand protections for closed‑session and attorney‑client privileged communications and to give the board authority to sanction or censure members who disclose such information without board approval. The measure passed after discussion and at least one recorded dissent.
County counsel presented the proposed change, saying the amendment clarifies existing confidentiality expectations and adds a new sentence: “Documents, information, and discussions from a closed session, attorney‑client privilege communication, and other confidential information shall not be disclosed without the approval of the board.” The draft then directs the board to vote to authorize any disclosure or to reaffirm confidentiality and authorizes the board, “in its discretion,” to sanction or censure a member for improper disclosure.
Several supervisors raised concerns about vague language and the potential for politicized enforcement. Board member Miss Drury said she worried the measure “goes a little too far and gives too much power to the ruling majority to make decisions about sanctioning and censuring members” and asked who defines what is “improper.” Another member asked for clarity on whether a censure could bar a member from voting; County Counsel replied it could not: a censure would be a public statement and not a punitive legal penalty.
Mister Hardy moved to accept the amendment; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote with at least one recorded nay from Miss Drury. Following the vote, Mister Pierce successfully moved to schedule a work session on the entire code of ethics to allow more review; the board set the work session for Nov. 14 at 6:00 p.m. at the EOC Building Conference Room and asked members to submit questions to legal counsel in advance.
The amendment explicitly references Virginia law on closed sessions and attorney‑client privilege but does not change what may be discussed in closed session, Counsel said; she described the measure as clarifying responsibilities and providing a board process to address unauthorized disclosure.
The next procedural step is the Nov. 14 work session, where supervisors said they will review the full code and proposed sanctions language in more detail.
