View from the Ridge: When competence is mocked in public service

By Valerie Cury

Using modern tools to explore options, gather insight, and shape decisions is not controversial—it’s essential. Tens of millions of people rely on AI, colleagues, advisors, English professors, attorneys, friends, and consultants every day to test ideas, challenge assumptions, and strengthen outcomes. Public servants are no different. Rarely does anyone work in a bubble.

Yet in Purcellville, the use of such tools by Town Manager Kwasi Fraser has been treated as something worthy of mockery—and that is deeply troubling.

Hundreds of pages of routine work product—questions asked, drafts refined, policies reviewed—were publicly aired, not as examples of diligence, but as fodder for ridicule. The intent was clear: preparation is portrayed as weakness, thoughtful questioning as uncertainty, and professionalism as something to be sneered at.

Some of Fraser’s inquiries explored ways to refine communication or express ideas more effectively. Asking AI for suggestions, examples, or styles is no different than consulting a colleague, a mentor, an attorney, or an English professor. It’s curiosity. It’s education. It’s the responsible pursuit of clarity and good governance. This is part of a larger environment of political tension and strategic targeting.

Fraser’s ChatGPT records from his account were allegedly first obtained through a Freedom of Information request, initiated months ago by a well-connected sitting council member who has played a role to lawsuits and political disputes involving town leadership. That council member is not acting alone, but as part of a minority voting block on council.

That same faction is currently suing the Town of Purcellville over a claimed supermajority requirement for budget approval—despite no such requirement existing. This is part of a broader pattern of litigating and publicizing internal disputes while skirting their own voting records on substantive debates over annexation, tax increases, and large-scale development, all of which are supported by this faction—who has turned governance into a battlefield of distraction.

What followed was predictable. A media account amplified the material not to inform residents about how their town is run, but to trivialize and demean. Routine administrative questions were presented as punchlines. The message was clear—using tools to excel should be laughed at.

Framing is powerful—it determines whether preparation looks like diligence or weakness. Ridicule is an effective political weapon because it doesn’t require proof. Preparation becomes uncertainty. Asking questions becomes weakness. Thoughtfulness becomes something to sneer at. The goal isn’t accountability—it’s to make someone look unqualified without ever having to prove it.

In any organization, especially one with a large, established bureaucracy, change often meets resistance because existing systems, roles, and routines are comfortable, familiar—and tied to existing interests.

And this isn’t just about one town manager. It’s about anyone who challenges the status quo—leaders who advocate for right-sized government, fiscal restraint, slow growth, or the preservation of a community’s character. When these arguments succeed on substance, the response is often not reasoned debate—it’s delegitimization, ridicule, and distraction.

Kwasi Fraser was elected mayor four times, and is the first Black mayor and town manager of Purcellville. He has championed policies that protect small-town character, prioritize responsible spending, and promote manageable growth. Those positions naturally draw political opposition. In that context, turning routine, professional behavior into public mockery appears less like oversight and more like a deliberate strategy.

Here is the reality most people recognize—no serious leader governs alone. They ask questions. They seek input. They test ideas. They use every available resource to make better decisions— because the stakes are high and the responsibility to protect Purcellville is real.

If using modern tools is treated as a flaw, then what gets rewarded isn’t real leadership—it’s showmanship. Not skill, but confidence for show. Not results, but appearances. In many professions—law, academia, business, and public service—it’s standard to seek guidance, check ideas, or use tools to make better decisions. AI is simply one of the latest ways to do that. 

If mocking Fraser for using a common professional tool is justified, then we’re mocking anyone who strives to do their job well.

Communities deserve better than governance by ridicule. They deserve leaders who prepare, who think, and who use the tools available to them to serve well—and a public conversation that values substance over spectacle.

Purcellville—and towns like it—deserve nothing less.