Rayner’s attempt to tip the vote—targeted, trapped, and torn down

Nett cleared by Panel, then arrested along with Town Manager

By Valerie Cury

In a dramatic rebuke of political interference and procedural injustice, the Town of Purcellville Employee Grievance Panel has unequivocally exonerated Officer Ben Nett, overturning his April 4 termination from the Police Department. What began as a controversial dismissal steeped in allegations now stands exposed as a flawed, politically motivated attack that shattered a career and threatened a man’s livelihood and reputation. The Panel’s unanimous decision not only orders Nett’s reinstatement with full back pay and reimbursement of legal fees but also highlights a deeply dysfunctional system where personal vendettas overshadow justice and fair process.

The Town of Purcellville Employee Grievance Panel found no factual basis for any of the five grounds cited in Nett’s termination. Reviewing testimony and documentation, they ruled that not only had Nett not committed misconduct, but that the process used against him was improperly influenced by political rivalries and violated both the Town’s Employee Handbook and the Police Department’s General Orders.

On June 25, the Town of Purcellville Employee Grievance Panel (hereto referred to as the Panel) convened to review Nett’s April 4 termination from the Police Department, in accordance with grievance procedures outlined in the Town’s Employee Handbook. The Panel was composed of Dr. David R. Buss (Chair), Brian K. Wells, and Jonathan R. Wright.

After thoroughly examining the evidence, the Panel unanimously concluded that Nett did not engage in the conduct described in his notice of termination. They found no factual support for any of the Town’s allegations and ruled that the termination was unjustified.

The directed patrol allegation: The Panel reviewed five specific grounds for Nett’s dismissal. The first concerned his attendance at a Jan. 30, 2025, Town Council Agenda Planning Session, held from 8 to 9 a.m., while he was on duty and marked out for “directed patrol.”

Nett attended the meeting in full uniform, seated publicly with his radio on and laptop open—actions the panel viewed as transparent and consistent with remaining ready to respond. The Panel also noted that the Town has no written policy governing the use of directed patrol time. They have no policy specifying when, how, or under what circumstances an officer may utilize directed patrol time. Lt. Holman confirmed there was no such policy, but even if there were, Nett had not received training on its appropriate use.

Testimony indicated that officers commonly use directed patrol time for lunch or errands, as long as they remain on call and ready to respond.

In the absence of any policy or training on directed patrol, the Panel found it unreasonable to view Nett’s attendance at the Jan. 30 meeting as a violation. They also noted that Lt. Holman or Acting Chief Lombrana should have established clear expectations—especially given Nett’s dual role as a police officer and Town Council member.

Initial sick leave allegations: The Town alleged that Nett lied about being sick when he took sick leave and attended the Virginia Municipal League conference on Jan. 29-30. However, all of the Town’s evidence supporting this allegation came from Council Member Erin Rayner, a known political opponent of Nett.

Rayner testified that she saw Nett in Richmond on the evening of Jan. 29, speaking on the phone and drinking a drink. While she claimed he appeared to be talking, she admitted she could not actually “hear him.”

Nett explained that he was recovering from flu-like symptoms and experiencing leg pain, which prevented him from performing his duties as a patrol officer. His account was supported by fellow Council Member Carol Luke, who testified that she drove Nett to Richmond on the evening of Jan. 29 because of the pain in his knee. Luke added that Nett “wasn’t feeling great” and noted that his illness would not have been apparent through casual observation alone. She also testified that they remained mostly stationary during the conference.

Rayner testified that she spoke with Nett for about five minutes on Jan. 30 and observed that he “seemed fine.” She was also interviewed by the Prince William Police Department during its internal affairs investigation. 

The Panel noted a “serious factual deficiency” in the Town’s failure to produce the investigation report or to call any witnesses from the department to testify about its findings. This lack of evidence significantly undermined the credibility of the Town’s case.

The Town of Purcellville Grievance Panel highlighted that the Prince William Police Department’s conclusion that Nett was not sick relied exclusively on the uncorroborated sole testimony of Rayner.

The Panel found that the testimony on March 19 was consistent with earlier affidavits submitted by Nett, Council Member Carol Luke, Mayor Chris Bertaut, and one of Luke’s colleagues.

The Panel did not find the Prince William internal affairs investigation, which took place with at least one officer from the PWPD—First Sergeant Jessica Tacha—to be credible. 

The Town failed to provide the Panel with a copy of the investigation report. Based on the limited information available, the Panel concluded that Council Member Erin Rayner was the sole source for the conclusion that Nett was not sick.

Prince William investigators did not interview any of the other individuals who were with Nett during the Jan. 29–30 conference—Mayor Chris Bertaut, and Council Members Carol Luke and Susan Khalil. The panel wrote, “This failure to consider evidence other than Ms. Raynor’s (sic) statements shows that the Prince William IA investigation, at best, was not sufficiently thorough to be reliable.”

Alleged failure to cooperate and targeted: The Town alleged that Nett refused to participate in the internal affairs investigation regarding his use of sick leave to attend the VML conference and his attendance at the Jan. 10 planning conference while on directed patrol. However, the Panel found only one request—on Feb. 7—for Nett to comply with the PWPD investigation. They concluded that he fulfilled this obligation by meeting with officers on March 19.

His participation was late but on Feb. 8, Nett emailed Lt. Holman to notify him that he would be on sick leave until approximately Feb. 28, and Lt. Holman confirmed receipt of the email during his testimony. Holman demanded a phone call; Nett emailed. The Panel found Holman’s request unreasonable. The Town also has no official policy for notification for sick leave and did not update its General Orders.

The Panel concluded that “the Town failed to provide evidence that Lt. Holman is empowered to change formal Department policy at his whim.”

Further targeting: Beyond the question of compliance, the Panel also considered Nett’s perspective on his treatment by the department. “Nett provided convincing testimony that he felt targeted” by the PD due to his dual role as police officer and Town Council Member.

The department launched an internal affairs investigation after Nett allegedly failed to activate his body-worn camera while responding to a call about a dog locked in a car. However, when he arrived, the situation had been resolved without incident, and there was no indication that further action—or camera activation—was required.

The situation escalated when Nett’s political opponent, John Mark Gardner, accused him of intimidation. This led Lt. Moskowitz to interview Nett despite “clear political implications.” During the interview, Nett was placed in a witness room, relieved of his service weapon, and videotaped.

He was questioned about whether he intended to remain with the Police Department after his election to Town Council. Additionally the Panel points out that on Nov. 4, the day before the election, Nett was “randomly” chosen for a  drug test. 

After the election, LaDonna Snellbaker, Director of Human Resources, informed Nett that he could not serve simultaneously as a police officer and a Town Council member and asked him to resign.

In July 2024—well after Nett had announced his candidacy for Town Council—the employee handbook was “amended” to prohibit employees from serving on the Town Council. Meanwhile, signs supporting his opponents were placed in front of the Police Department. The Panel found that these factors, combined with the internal affairs investigations, contributed to Nett’s realization that he was actually being targeted.

Delayed participation: The Panel also found Nett’s delayed participation in the Prince William County internal affairs investigation was justified. Town Manager Kwasi Fraser advised him not to cooperate, as Fraser had not authorized Acting Chief Lombrana to initiate the investigation. As the Panel noted, this recommendation from Fraser—Lombrana’s superior—was significant.

Ultimately, the Panel found that Nett did participate in the Prince William investigation, and that his delayed participation was justified both by his medical leave and the Town Manager’s recommendation not to engage in an unauthorized investigation. The Panel also found it reasonable that Nett could attend a Town Council meeting on the evening of Feb. 13 while still being sick and unfit for duty as a police officer.

Where’s the doctor’s note? On Feb. 8, Nett informed the department that he would be on sick leave until further notice. On Feb. 13, Lt. Holman directed him to provide a physician’s statement by Feb. 17. On Feb. 16, Nett advised Holman that his sick leave would likely extend through approximately Feb. 28. Although Nett had not yet submitted the physician’s statement, Holman did not dispute the updated leave timeline.

The Employee Handbook requires a doctor’s note before an employee may return to work but does not require one during the period of sick leave. It does not define failure to provide a note in advance as insubordination—only that a note is required before resuming duty.

The Panel found that Lt. Holman’s demand for a doctor’s note by Feb. 17—while Nett was still on sick leave—violated the Employee Handbook. Nett did not ignore the request; he informed Lt. Holman on Feb. 16 that he would remain on leave until approximately Feb. 28. 

The Panel also found the timing of the request, issued at 8 p.m. on Feb. 13 and allowing only two working days to comply, to be “patently unreasonable.” Nevertheless, on Feb. 18, Holman placed Nett on administrative leave and labeled the situation “insubordination,” despite the Handbook only requiring a doctor’s note upon return to work. Nett never returned to work, and therefore no note was required.

And then … Brady/Giglio Listed: On April 4, Acting Chief Lombrana terminated Officer Nett, citing his placement on the Brady/Giglio list and stating that Nett was “no longer suited for employment as a police officer within this department.”

Nett had been placed on the Brady list on Feb. 24 before any adjudicatory body had an opportunity to review the allegations against him. The designation followed a letter from Loudoun County Commonwealth’s Attorney Bob Anderson to Acting Chief Lombrana. 

The letter cited three reasons: Nett’s attendance at the VML conference while allegedly out sick; his failure to provide a doctor’s note for Feb. 8–9; and his presence at both a Jan. 10 agenda planning meeting while marked out on directed patrol and a Feb. 13 Town Council meeting while on sick leave.

However, the Panel concluded that Nett was truthful and justified in all of the actions cited as grounds for his inclusion on the Brady List. The Panel also found that placement on the Brady List does not require termination, noting that officers can continue to serve in non-testimonial roles and perform valuable duties within the department.

The Panel concluded that Nett’s actions did not constitute misconduct and did not violate any laws. They also found that he was subjected to targeting due to his dual roles as a Town Council member and police officer.

The Department’s disciplinary actions were neither consistent with law and policy nor reasonable. In fact, the steps taken violated both the Employee Handbook and the Department’s General Orders, which require that discipline be “imposed fairly and impartially.”

 Both the Employee Handbook and General Orders require progressive discipline—starting with oral counseling, then escalating to reprimands, suspension, demotion, and only then dismissal.

The Panel found that both Acting Chief Lombrana and Lt. Holman failed to follow this process. Holman “jumped immediately to administrative leave” when Nett allegedly failed to provide a doctor’s note. Lombrana later testified that a single missed note was sufficient “insubordination” to justify termination—an action the Panel found disproportionate and inconsistent with policy.

The Panel found that the Department’s disciplinary actions were inconsistent and driven by improper motives.

Lombrana admitted she “willfully refused to reinstate” Nett, even after being directed to do so by Town Manager Kwasi Fraser—her superior. She stated she did not believe the General Orders required her to follow the Town Manager’s instructions. As the report put it: “With this admission, Chief Lombrana’s cavalier refusal to follow the orders of the Town Manager constitutes, at least, continued and ongoing insubordination and should be of grave concern to Town residents.”

The Panel found that Nett was terminated and placed on the Brady List for minor disputed alleged violations and the actions taken against him have “serious life-long implications for him and his family.” 

In contrast the supervisors in the Police Department displayed insubordination to superiors. Lombrana’s disregard for the Town Manager’s order to reinstate Nett was “flagrant and ongoing, and displays the “worst type of leadership—one set of rules for rank-and-file officers and a different set of rules for higher ranking supervisors.”

Politically motivated—The road begins, continues and ends with Rayner: The Panel found that the Town’s “politics are dysfunctional” and “these political divides motivated the Department to terminate Mr. Nett because of his election to Town Council and campaign promises for reorganization of the Police Department”—to include the “elimination of Chief Lombrana’s then Deputy Chief position.”

Lombranas’s Panel testimony was “evasive, argumentative, contentious, and inconsistent,” along with her arrogant and disrespectful demeanor—sometimes even shouting over Panel members. She even admitted “that the process against Mr. Nett involved politics.”

“I mean, we’re here, right? I mean, there’s … no secret that politics are involved,” she said. Lombrana admitted that she relied entirely on the findings of the Prince William IA investigation report, which “used Councilwoman Raynor [Rayner] as its single source for the VML conference issue. Lombrana did not question Bertaut, Luke or Khalil.

The Panel findings stated, “Based on this underdeveloped report, Chief Lombrana testifies that she informed Bob Anderson’s office of the allegations against Mr. Nett before any adjudicatory body had an opportunity to determine the veracity of the allegations. 

“In short, Chief Lombrana acted as judge, jury, and executioner for Mr. Nett by prematurely informing Mr. Anderson’s office of the allegations against him.”

The Panel determined that there should have been no reason for Lombrana to inform Anderson’s office about the allegations at this time “except that she wanted Mr. Nett to be on the Brady List.”

Even though Lombrana admitted she is not a medical professional and “she could not determine whether an officer can fulfill police duties with an injured leg that prevents an officer from driving,” Lombrana was certain he was lying. She could not give any evidence that backed her statement.

Rayner testified that she was formerly the campaign manager for Nicole Wittmann, the Deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney for Loudoun County.

Lombrana said she first contacted Fairfax County Chief of Police to conduct the IA investigation and the Chief turned down the investigation into Nett because of its “clear political nature.”

The Panel pointed out that the close proximity of Erin Rayner to “the office of the Commonwealth Attorney Bob Anderson cannot be ignored.” 

The Panel ordered the Town to reverse its termination of Nett and reinstate him to his former position in the Police Department with back pay and applicable benefits. The Town is also required to pay Nett reasonable attorneys’ fees arising from and related to his termination within 15 days.

While the Grievance Panel has ordered Nett reinstated, the effort to remove him from power—and from the Council seat that would tip the balance—continues. The facts are now on the record. The motive it appears is to strip a man of his badge, silence his vote, and seize political control.

Update: July 23, 2025: Ben Nett and Town Manager Kwasi Fraser were arrested for the following allegations according to Public Relations Coordinator of the Virginia State Police Matthew Demlein,“Following a Virginia State Police Bureau of Criminal Investigation Fairfax Field Office Investigation, a grand jury charged Carl B. Nett, Purcellville Vice-Mayor, with six felony counts: four involving violations regarding the Virginia Criminal Information Network and two related to bid rigging and conspiracy. The grand jury also charged Kwasi Fraser, Purcellville Town Manager, on two felony counts related to bid rigging and conspiracy.” Arraignments for Fraser and Nett took place on July 28, motions hearing on Sept. 4.