A vote, an opinion, and a State Police Investigation

By Valerie Cury

On April 21, Commonwealth’s Attorney Bob Anderson issued a response to Council Member Caleb Stought’s April 13 request for an advisory opinion. Stought had asked whether Purcellville Vice Mayor Ben Nett may have violated the State and Local Government Conflict of Interest Act—legislation that, among other things, defines and prohibits improper conflicts of interest, requires disclosure of economic interests, and governs whether an official can vote on certain matters including, in Nett’s case, those involving the police department. Stought’s request came after Vice Mayor Ben Nett’s employment with the police department had ended on
April 4.

Commonwealth’s Attorney Bob Anderson responded on April 21, stating that Nett was “prohibited from voting on matters involving the police department, attending closed meetings concerning the department, participating in related transactions, and lobbying or discussing police matters with other town officials.” He further wrote that “taking any action on these issues, with the knowledge that they are prohibited, could constitute a criminal misdemeanor offense.”

Decisions made by the Town Council guide the actions of the police chief, who in turn oversees department personnel—including Ben Nett, who serves both as a police officer and a council member. This dual role presents a clear conflict of interest, wrote Anderson on April 21. However, Nett’s employment as a police officer had ended on April 4.

In February 2025, the Town Council hired an independent consultant to evaluate the Purcellville Police Department. Vice Mayor Ben Nett communicated with the consultant to share his own recommendations for changes to the department and to influence what would be included in the final report—an action widely considered inappropriate under any circumstances, wrote Anderson.

However, contrary to Anderson’s assertions, the consultant’s contract does direct him to conduct interviews with all available police department employees to “assess their perspectives on operations, department leadership, department culture, morale, and operational efficiency.” It also instructs the consultant to “engage with the town council members and gather insights into the community’s expectations and concerns regarding the Police Department.”

Anderson further wrote that “Nett voted in his capacity as Vice Mayor to eliminate the Purcellville Police Department,” and appeared to be retaliatory and a conflict of interest. Nett’s vote on April 8, was to direct staff to draft an ordinance to rescind Chapter 42 of the Town Code—a policy prescription for a vote to be discussed at a later date.

At that meeting Nett said the Town Council had hard choices to make. He said the proposed budget was a good starting point because “it puts us at zero percent rate increases on water and waste water.”

He reminded Council that when he took office in January the proposal was to again raise utility rates 18 and 22% on top of the 16 and 18% increases made last year. “I was the last one to come on board with this.” 

Nett said the Police Department for several years hasn’t been able to provide 24/7 coverage, “contrary to public claims otherwise including those on the Town’s website.” He said the decision is “supported by members of staff who have likewise noted that the Police Department has been the source of most of the human resources complaints over the last decade to include past litigation.”

On April 22, Mayor Chris Bertaut read a letter he sent to Attorney General Jason Miyares:

“I am writing to express my growing alarm regarding the criminal investigation your office has authorized into Council Member and Vice Mayor Ben Nett, now being carried out by the Virginia State Police. The events surrounding this investigation strongly suggest that it is politically motivated, procedurally improper, and fundamentally at odds with the democratic principles that underpin public service in the Commonwealth.

 “On April 21, 2025, the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office issued an advisory opinion at the request of another Town Council member, Caleb Stought, a political opponent of Mr. Nett. Alarmingly, that opinion contained a material misstatement of fact. It claimed that Vice Mayor Nett voted to disband the Purcellville Police Department. This is categorically false.

“The official public record reflects that on April 8, 2025, Vice Mayor Nett did not vote to disband the police department. Rather, he voted—along with the majority of the Council—to direct the town attorney to draft an amendment to the Town Code for future consideration. This was a procedural step to explore a policy change, not a final decision to enact it. The vote was legal, proper, and consistent with the responsibilities of any elected local official engaged in shaping public policy.

“Despite this, the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office has since issued a Notice of Criminal Investigation to all Town Council members, advising that Vice Mayor Nett should be barred not only from voting on matters related to the Purcellville Police Department, but even from attending meetings where the Police Department is discussed. The latter demand has no identifiable legal basis and appears to represent a direct and unconstitutional infringement on Mr. Nett’s rights—both as an elected official and as a private citizen entitled to attend and speak at public meetings under the First Amendment.

“This is just the most recent and alarming escalation in a troubling series of events:

 “1. Violation of Procedural Rights: Then-Officer Nett was placed on the Brady List by the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office before being allowed to respond to the allegations, and before any hearing—violating the Virginia Law-Enforcement Officers Procedural Guarantee Act and denying him due process.

“2. Politically Motivated Witnesses: A key witness in an alleged HR infraction is Council Member Erin Rayner, a political opponent. The push for Nett’s dismissal was led by the then-Deputy Chief of Police—a position Mr. Nett had proposed eliminating during his campaign, creating the clear appearance of political or personal retaliation.

“3. Orchestrated Recall Effort: Mr. Nett is facing a recall petition driven by political adversaries, citing weak or unsubstantiated claims—such as alleged FOIA violations and procedural concerns over a Town Manager hiring, which falls squarely within the lawful authority of the Town Council. Notably, a listed witness to the recall is failed mayoral candidate Stan Milan, again highlighting the political nature of these attacks.

“4. Conflict of Interest in the Prosecutor’s Office: A high-ranking member of the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office, Nicole Whitman, previously ran for office with Council Member Erin Rayner, serving as her campaign manager. This constitutes a direct conflict of interest that casts doubt on the integrity of any prosecutorial action involving Mr. Nett.

“5. Criminalizing a Lawful Vote: A central event leading to this investigation appears to be Mr. Nett’s lawful vote on April 8, 2025, to direct the town attorney to draft a proposal for eliminating the local police department—a policy decision, debated and voted on publicly, with the town attorney confirming that Mr. Nett was not barred from participating. That this vote would contribute to a criminal inquiry is alarming and chilling to the democratic process.

“The totality of these circumstances suggests that investigative and legal mechanisms are being leveraged not to uphold the law, but to target and silence an elected official for his policy positions and political independence.

“I urge your office to immediately reassess its involvement in this investigation and to publicly clarify the legal basis—if any—for the extraordinary steps now being taken to curtail Mr. Nett’s rights as both an official and a citizen. Democracy depends on the ability of elected representatives to speak, deliberate, and vote without fear of political or prosecutorial retaliation.

“Thank you for your time and attention to this serious matter. I trust your office will act with the integrity and impartiality the Commonwealth of Virginia requires and deserves.”

On April 8 the majority of town council voted to direct the Town Attorney to draft a proposal for eliminating the Town Police Department. The Town Attorney in consultation with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Advisory Council said Nett could vote on the draft ordinance.

Despite Anderson’s advisory opinion, On April 22, G. Stewart Petoe, Executive Director Virginia Conflict of Interest and Ethics Advisory Council again reaffirmed that Nett’s participation is permissible under COIA.

“Your employment with the Purcellville Police Department ended on Friday, April 4, 2025. Therefore, as of Saturday, April 5, 2025, you no longer had a personal interest in the Police Department.  Accordingly, it was and is permissible for you to participate in transactions that concern the Police Department from April 5 onward, including those that solely concern the Police Department.  

“This is in contrast to your restrictions under the State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act when you were employed with the Police Department.  While you were so employed, you had a personal interest in that agency and had a personal interest in any transactions that involved or could affect that agency. This is why you were prohibited from participating in any transaction that solely involved the Police Department. You were permitted to participate in transactions that involved the Police Department and at least two other Town agencies or departments, pursuant to the exception provided for in Virginia Code section 2.2-3112 (B) (1); «a member of a business, profession, occupation, or group of three or more persons the members of which are affected by the transaction…”  This is why you were permitted to participate in transactions involving the town’s overall budget, but could not participate in transactions that impacted only the Police Department.

“You are still within the time period for filing a grievance against your termination on April 4. It is my legal opinion that this does not generate a personal interest in a transaction for you for transactions that concern the Police Department. The definition of “personal interest in a transaction” is defined in relevant part as:a personal interest of an officer or employee in any matter considered by his agency. Such personal interest exists when an officer or employee or a member of his immediate family has a personal interest in property or a business or governmental agency, or represents or provides services to any individual or business and such property, business or represented or served individual or business (i) is the subject of the transaction or (ii) may realize a reasonably foreseeable direct or indirect benefit or detriment as a result of the action of the agency considering the transaction.

“The operative language from this definition for purposes of my conclusion is “a reasonably foreseeable direct or indirect benefit or detriment.» [Emphasis supplied].  Both the Council and the Office of the Attorney General have stated that for purposes of COIA, benefits or detriments must be «reasonably foreseeable.»  Benefits or detriments that are purely speculative do not create a personal interest in a transaction. A scenario in which you might be reinstated to your former position, if you are successful in a grievance proceeding, is speculative. Therefore, this fact (of your being within the grievance window) does not create a personal interest for you in a transaction involving the Police Department.

“Therefore, it would not be impermissible for you to participate in transactions that solely concern or could impact the Police Department.  (As noted above, you were always permitted to participate in transactions that involved the Police Department and at least two other Town agencies or departments).”

On April 22, the Office of Commonwealth’s Attorney Bob Anderson notified the Purcellville Town Council that, as of April 21, the Virginia Attorney General had authorized the State Police to conduct a criminal investigation into Vice Mayor Ben Nett.

Chief Deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney Nicole Wittmann previously served as Deputy Attorney General for Criminal Justice and Public Safety after joining the Office of the Virginia Attorney General in 2022. She returned to Loudoun County to rejoin the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office in January 2025. In 2019, Council Member Erin Rayner—Vice Mayor Nett’s political opponent—served as campaign manager for Wittmann’s bid for Commonwealth’s Attorney.