Purcellville Council deadlocks on Chief vote amid unacknowledged Grievance findings

By Valerie Cury

At its Oct. 14 meeting, the Purcellville Town Council deadlocked 3–3 on a motion to enter a closed session to consider applicants for the Chief of Police position and to receive legal advice on the matter. A subsequent motion to appoint Acting Chief Sara Lombrana also failed, with Council Members Erin Rayner, Kevin Wright, and Caleb Stought voting in favor, and Mayor Chris Bertaut, along with Council Members Carol Luke and Susan Khalil, voting against. 

Vice Mayor Ben Nett recused himself from any discussion and votes, opting to err on the side of caution in response to an advisory opinion from the Loudoun County Commonwealth’s Attorney, who has taken the unusual step of involving himself in the matter—despite guidance to the contrary from both the Virginia Conflict of Interest and Ethics Advisory Council and the Town Attorney. 

Regarding whether Nett should leave the chambers during the discussion and vote, Town Attorney John Cafferky noted, “He has the prosecutorial power, I don’t.” In response, Nett excused himself from the room.

His exit drew laughter from the crowd—highlighting the ongoing breakdown in decorum and the increasingly unmanageable atmosphere among Rayner, Wright, and Stought supporters, including Council Member Caleb Stought’s wife, who was among those disrupting the meeting. 

The room remained charged throughout the evening, as some in the crowd—including former Council Member Joan Lehr—engaged in obstreperous behavior, shouting, cursing, and disrupting the proceedings. Lehr, who served on the Lazaro-era council that left the town with tens of millions in debt and the now-expired Vineyard Square project, left the chambers mid-meeting, declaring loudly, “I’m removing myself—you guys are a**holes.”

Since the spring, the Town has been working with the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police & Foundation to identify and evaluate potential candidates for the Chief of Police position. A few of the initially identified candidates ultimately chose not to move forward in the process. 

The stalemate prompted a strong reaction from Rayner, Wright, and Stought. “Why?” asked Rayner, challenging the decision not to move forward. Mayor Bertaut responded, “It concerns matters that were discussed in a closed session.”

Rayner pushed back, replying, “Yes, and obviously our Town Attorney has more to say to us and you don’t want to hear that.” At that point, Interim Town Manager Diana Hays interjected, noting that the item had originally been placed on the agenda as an action item, but was moved to closed session at the request of the mayor. This change was made because the matter involved personnel issues.

Quickly, Stought made a motion to appoint Lombrana as Chief of Police. The motion failed, with Bertaut, Luke and Khalil voting no.

Rayner said, “I am unclear why you do not want to hear the legal advice from our lawyer in closed session regarding this matter. I believe it’s pretty ignorant of you not to hear it.” She also said the Town Attorney’s job “is to give us legal advice and you are refusing to hear it.”

Trust the attorney—unless you don’t like the answer

On Oct. 6, Council Members Erin Rayner, Kevin Wright, and Caleb Stought filed a petition for declaratory judgment in Loudoun County Circuit Court—asking a judge to decide whether adopting the Town’s annual budget requires a supermajority vote.”

The legal action stems from their failed attempt earlier this year to raise taxes and utility rates as part of the Fiscal Year 2026 budget. The proposal included an increase to the real estate tax rate and steep, double-digit hikes to water and sewer rates. It was rejected in a 4–3 vote, with Bertaut, Nett, Luke, and Khalil voting against all increases and instead approving rate reductions.

The petition is notable not only for its potential impact on the upcoming FY27 budget cycle, but also for highlighting a broader contradiction in how Rayner, Wright, and Stought approach legal advice from the Town Attorney.  

During the Oct. 14 meeting, the three repeatedly chastised their fellow council members for not wanting to listen to the Town Attorney’s legal guidance on the police chief appointment. Yet in filing their petition, they are now openly defying that same attorney’s longstanding interpretation that the budget may be passed by a simple majority vote.

This is not the first time they have disregarded the Town Attorney’s legal advice. In late 2024, just before the new council took office, a former mayor was appointed to the Planning Commission in anticipation of a vacancy that would not exist until Jan. 1. In January 2025, the Town Attorney advised that the appointment was invalid, citing the absence of an actual vacancy at the time, a violation of an attorney general’s opinion, and conflicting court rulings. Despite this guidance, Rayner, Wright, and Stought voted against repealing the appointment. It was ultimately rescinded by Bertaut, Nett, Luke, and Khalil.

Town Attorney John Cafferky has addressed the budget vote on multiple occasions, including during the June 17 Special Budget Work Session. At that meeting, he explained that after the Council voted to lower the real estate tax rate a few months earlier, he had “both the opportunity and the responsibility to look into it further.”

On June 17, after reviewing Code § 15.2-2503 and § 58.1, which govern local budget and tax procedures, Cafferky concluded that a supermajority is not required to adopt the town budget. 

Cafferky stated that his interpretation was consistent with that of “your previous town attorney.” He also clarified that because adopting the budget is not the same as imposing a new tax or establishing a new category of taxation, it does not rise to the level that would require a supermajority vote under Virginia law.

Despite this consistent legal guidance, Rayner, Wright, and Stought are now asking a judge to override that opinion—underscoring the disconnect between their public demands for legal adherence and their own actions.

The report they don’t want to talk about

On June 28, the Town of Purcellville Employee Grievance Panel issued a unanimous decision, which is publicly available, finding that Officer Ben Nett, who also serves as Vice Mayor, was cleared of all charges brought against him. The Panel determined this based on the greater weight of the evidence. As part of its ruling, the Panel ordered Nett’s reinstatement with full back pay and reimbursement of reasonable attorney’s fees. 

They also found the placement of Nett on the Brady List, as designated by the Commonwealth’s Attorney, to be unwarranted, concluding that he was not guilty of any malfeasance in connection with the events cited in the Brady List letter.

The Panel identified multiple instances in which Lt. Holman and Acting Chief Lombrana failed to follow formal policy or implement proper procedures related to the charges against Nett. It also noted that the Town had not updated its General Orders. 

In one example, the Panel stated, “The Town failed to provide evidence that Lt. Holman is empowered to change formal Department policy at his whim.” In another, Lt. Holman instructed Nett—who was on sick leave—to call him; Nett responded by email. The Panel concluded that this did not constitute a violation of department rules or regulations.

Testimony from Lt. Holman and Acting Chief Lombrana revealed they failed to follow “the progressive and proportionate disciplinary procedures required by the Town Handbook and General Orders”—a core requirement designed to ensure fairness in disciplinary actions.

One example was when Lt. Holman placed Nett on administrative leave immediately after he allegedly failed to provide a doctor’s note for sick leave—even though, under town policy, such documentation is only required upon an employee’s return from sick leave. At the time, Nett was still out. Lombrana testified that, in Nett’s case, a single failure to submit a doctor’s note was considered sufficient “insubordination” to justify termination.

The Panel also noted that Acting Chief Lombrana refused to follow the town manager’s directive to reinstate Nett, despite the fact that he is her supervisor, as required under the department’s General Orders. Lombrana testified that she “didn’t feel that I should.” The Panel described her refusal as “cavalier” and stated that her continued insubordination “should be of grave concern to Town residents.”

The breadth of issues detailed in the Employee Grievance Panel report may explain why Bertaut, Luke, and Khalil opposed the appointment—and why they refused to engage in further discussion behind closed doors. The Panel’s findings suggest deeper concerns not just about individual conduct, but about leadership, accountability, and a process some officials may no longer trust.

The Blue Ridge Leader contacted Dana G. Schrad, Executive Director of the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police and a participant in the selection process, multiple times to ask whether she had reviewed the Town of Purcellville Grievance Panel report. She did not respond.