Dooley v Gloucester County School Board Final Opinion of The Gloucester County, Virginia General District Court "Because the discussion recorded in this closed meeting as it relates to Mr. Post, is so far outside the realm of what a reasonable person could possibly consider a professional discussion of a public officer or employee's performance, the Court concludes a penalty is appropriate and imposes a $250 civil penalty."

1. SUMMONS FOR HEARl�G
Commonwenlth ofVirginia
.•.......................................G.�9..1:!.9��.IE.�.9.��..1:?.��.T..�.£!Y.IL .......................... General District Court
CITY OR COUNTY
·····---····· 1�g.� JUSTICE J?..�:.•..�9.�.�.?.�!..9.!::QY.f.��.T.E:�1_YA 23061
STRE(;T ADDRESS OfCOURT
TO ANY AUTHORIZED OFFICER:
You arc hereby commanded to summon the Defcndant(s) to appear on
..............�..lJ.�.1a.3.......·---····.f.·:2Q.P.�.................. before this court to answer
DATE AND TIME
PETITION FOR INJUNCTION OR MANDAMUS-FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND
(>4 AFFIDAVITFOR GOOD CAUSE OR PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECUIRTY NUMBERS ACT
....... ...... ............ ............................ --······-········································....
[ ] the attached Sewage Handling and Disposal Ticket.
........i.t-.llJa.3 ...............................
DATEISSUED
<3e.,e_, Ot'";_g
10� Q�«l()Y.�
t�LERK I I MAGISTRATE
CLAIM FOR VIOLATION OF SEWAGE HANDLING AND DISPOSAL REGULATION
Plaintiff, Virginia Department ofHealth, claims that defendant is in violation of Virginia law as
specified on the attached ticket.
-----------··········..····..
· · - - - - DATE ISSUED REPRESENTAT!VE. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENTOf HEALTH
CASE DISPOSITION l'v.A"d...._'V_J. �/-'"'--tcd._. .See a..+l-"''--"c J.
Judgment: )'<j Plaintiff(s)/ Pe.-tS·.�=.�-=·�···�··········-'?.f.'.�::.�:.� l....::=�
CASE NO. GV23000477•00
..................................½!I!::W..!?.9..9.�EY ...........
PLAINTIFF(S)
2492 N LANDING RD 104
················································--····••·••·
.. .....................VIRGrNIA llEACH,,_V;.;
A
.;_2
::.;
3
;..:.
4�
56
'----­
V.
GLOUCESTER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD
················••·•·······••··················· ···························--···························
DEFENDANT(S)
........... 6099 T.�:.���.��.��.�Q�_l?.··----
··············............ _G_L_
O _
U_C��].".��!.Y.�..?�g�.!---········--
........................... ················•··----
SUMMONS FOR HEARING
R.EC£1l'rNO. DATf: rEERCCEIVED
***
TO DEFENDANT: You arc not required to appear;
however, if you fail to appear, judgment may be emered
against you. · Sec the additional notice on page two about
requesting a change oftrial location.
[ ] To dispute this claim, you must appear on the return
date to try this case.
[ J To dispute this case, you must appear on the return date
for thejudge to set another date for trial. See
additional notice on page two.
[ ] Dcfcndant(s) S ____............................. I ,, * *
U f:,
Ai¼.....-,•u:; �.s. -t- P-:-t>h''Hlcr/
s ..:::l.'.?... .....0....,...!?..9....-......... . .....{....... Costs awarded to lvl Plaintiff(s) r ] Defcndant(s) I Bill ofParticulars ········································
LI'{ , ORDERED
B.�..::a.p..�..�..-1.......s."'.o.,.l.l.....�c..l.C��t:..."'l.p.v..<..!::l.v..Yol.±.•..+...E.o...1�-r..····�················
c.r
·=·��:
c) o.f
..�.::. ....�.�J.�.�..J..�.!.....�
t.
·�<:.
)
-t:':'.' ....__ . d ,".!. c"'-'!. ,· � 0 p sc.h. -�l-60 ...,...
f,
Grounds ofDefense .............
0
···
;;::;R.ED
i ..,; l rc:n� -h::) pc-.-_§�.�• 3":-1'-t 15 ......,1.
�c-,-:.;;,.·bc::r-······
p-c»
·��� .
"""
Se1vttge Handlingand Oispo�al 0£fcos
t_
S 2.5.-;;).___ Penalty assessed.A......J s---..s.r�c:J... ATTORNEY FOR PLAlNTlFF(S)
-----··
Dt.iE
DUE
[ ] NON-SUIT [ ] DISMISSED
I ·············---·······....··•·-------
Defendant(s} present? )><l Yes [ ] No ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT(S)
.....
�•�'-f•?._'2..
� �
I.............. ........... ..............·--···········..........
--=:;....---=:c.:...�--.....2.---·········· � ��
DATE ENTERED / JUDGE
FQR;l,l OC-4J0(MASTER. rhGE ONE Of TWO) 10118
HEARING DATE
ANDTIJIE
a./L19_l;;/.3
2:00 J)_ffi

2. SUMMONS FOR HEARING
Commonwealth of Virginia
ORlGINAL
........................................GLOUCES.T?.�.9..�..J?..��!..�.qY.P.:,........................................ General District Court
CITY ORCOUNTY
7400 JUSTICE DR . POB 873, GLOUCESTER, VA 23061
··············································································'······························································································· ..
STREET ADDRESS OF COURT
TO ANY AUTHORJZED OFFICER:
are hereb)Romffil:iiidcd-tcMttmm.Cl.I!..!.he Defendant(s) to appear on
·······---.....: 1(.!.�!.�9P......................................?:99.P.�........ ) before this court to answer
DATE AND TIME
PETITION FOR INJUNCTION OR MANDAMUS-FREEDOMOF INFORMATION ACT Mu
1)4 AFFIDAVIT FOR GOOD CAUSE OR PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITYNUMBERS ACT
-·.,: ..
...
•··············.·······........................_.......................................... . . . . . .
···"·•··-·•·'=",_, ,I•'·: .. � .--.- . ,,
[ ] the attached Sewage Handling and Disposal Ticket.
····-·-················4/1412023.......................... �
. ,·c• ,�,,.'.. D.ATE,1�.s.u.so..•.• · . . .
CLERK. [ ] MAGISTRATE
: •.;:_• .•,h�;l t •, 11 ._:.:l: :•:, •,c:-1••• ,';-": , , ..,!
,_- •
CLAIM FOR VIOLATION OF SEWAGE'IIANDLiNG.A:ND DISPOSAL REGULATION
Plaintiff, Virginia Department ofHealth, clai�s·that defendant is in violation ofVirginia law as
specified on the attached ticket.
DATE !SSUET> REPRESENTATIVE, VTRGTNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
CASE DISPOSITION
Judgment: . · P.&intiff(s)
/. �
[ ] Defendant(s)
$ ·························································
$ ·················........................................
$ .......................................................:.............. Costs awarded to [ ] Plaintiff(s) [ ] Defendant(s)
Sewa·ge Handling and Disposal Offense: $ ............................ Penalty assessed.
[ ] NON-SUIT [ ] DISMISSED
Defendant(s) present? [ ] Yes [ ] No
DATE ENTER!ln
FORM Dc-430 (M/STER, P/CiE. ONE OF TWO) IOIIR
JUDGE
0
�.
CASE NO. GV23000477-00 f•.
KAITLYN DOOLEY ·0
·········································································································'='",
PLAINTrFF(S) !;-.
2492N LANDING RD 104 �
··················································································•······················_,,.1
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23456 §�
·················.......................................................................................,a_
v. 1::;:i
�
GLOUCESTER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD
································�-t..:..........v••• ·············································
Ser',(e.,'. u:itol ix,r�T(S)
...........................6099.T.C..WALKER.ROAD ...........................
............................GLOUCESTER,_YA 23061.............................
SUMMONS FOR HEARING
RECEIPTNO. DATEFEE RECEIVED
�
"
***
TO DEFENDANT: You are not required to appear;
however, if you fail to appear, judgment may be entered
against you. See the additional notice on page two about
requesting a change of trial location.
[ ] To dispute this claim, you must appear on thereturn
date to try this case.
[ ] To dispute this case, you must appear on the return date
for thejudge to set another date for trial. See
additional notice on page two.
***
Bill ofParticulars
OROERF.O IJUF.
Grounds ofDefense
ORIJHREIJ IJUF.
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF(S)
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT(S)
HEARING DATE
AND TIME
4/19/2023
'
2:00pm �
------,r,

3. COMMONWEALTH�f VI�GINIA
STEPHANIE M. REVERE
JUDGE
GeneralDistrict Court
.COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER
HANNAH R. SMITH
CLERK
Mr. Tim Anderson, Esq.
. Virginia"Law Office · . .
P.O. 801t 873
·· Gloucester, VA23061.:Q873
.
TELEPHONE (804) 6934860 ·
.. .. F� (804) 693-6669
.
. .. ..
2492 N�rthLan4ing Road,:Suite·io4 · ·
Virginia Beach, VA. _23456:' ·.
...
. ·. ..
Ms. Stacy L. Haney� Esq.
Haney Phinyowattan�chip -PLLC. ,.
92oiArboretum Parkway, Suite 160
Richm�nd, VA 23·236 .
. .
.
: .
. . . . ...
....
Re:. Dooleyv. Gloucester COunty Sch�ol Bo�d,·
.
Case.No. GV23000477�00 . . . · . · . '· ..
Dear Mr. Anderson
.
_and Ms. Haney,
Before the Court is a Petitionfor Writ ofManci�mus, which was filed
.
by Kaitlyn Dooley
(hereinaft;er "Petitioner") pursuant toVirginia Code §2:2-3700 etseq. The Petitioner
claimsthe Gloucester County Schqol Board(hereinafte:r; "R�sipondent") violated.the
provisions ofthe Virginia Freedom·ofInforma:tion Act (FQIA) w�eil it refused to provide
an audio recording ofa December'i4, 20·21, school board meeting, citing the closed
meetingexception. See Code ofVirginia ofi950, as am�nded, § 2.2:3705(5).·
The Court heard evidence on April 19, 2023, and conti_mied the matter on·motion ofthe
parties to allow legal h.defing on the issue ofwhether Virginia la:w allows a schoql board
to hold a closed meeting.to discussthe performance of-an·elected school board member
where no standing rule ofthe board pepnits a member tobe censured. or otherwise
disciplined bythe board. ·
. .
On May 17, _2023, the Court overruled R�sp��denfs demurrer and announced its ruling
in favor ofPetitioner from the bench: ..
Because·the Court decided the.case for"reasons
that differfr9m tjie is�ues bp.efed -by �ouns�l;tl;iis letteropmio_nis;issu�dfor th� ·
.
purpose of_memQrializing·the·ratioriale for thi� decision. · :
.
.: . · · ·
.
. . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . .
Pag� 1·?f3 ·:
. .
. .,: . . : . . ..
·.•
. ..

4. Virginia Code§ 2.2-3711(A)(1) allows a public body to hold a closed meeting to discuss
or consider the "assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries,
disciplining, or resignation" ofthree categories of people:
1. specific public officers;
2. appointees;
3. or employees of any public body.
Closed meetings are only permitted ifthe public body passes an affirmative, public vote
to hold a closed meeting. The motion to close a public meeting must specifically identify
the subject matter of the closed meeting, state the purpose ofthe meeting, and cite the
applicable exemption from open meeting requirements. See Va. Code Ann.§ 2.2-
3712(A). Furthermore, pursuant to Virginia Code§2.2-3712(C), all closed meeting
discussions shall be limited to those matters identified in the motion for a closed
meeting.
Assuming, without deciding, that a school board may hold a closed meeting to discuss
the performance or discipline of an elected school board member based on an inherent
authority to censure its membership, no such motion was made prior to the closed
meeting on December 14, 2021. The minutes ofthe December 14, 2021, school board
meeting indicate the school board unanimously approved a closed meeting for the stated
purpose of: "discussion ofpersonnel matters (monthly appointments, resignations,
evaluations ofperformance)." See Respondent's Exhibit 1. Furthermore, the secretary's
notes ofthis motion and the subsequent voice vote indicate the motion was made for the
purpose of "discussion of personnel matters" as well as the "evaluation ofpersonnel."
See Petitioner's Exhibit 4.
The word "personnel" is not expressly used in the applicabie statute. "Personnel" is
defined as "a body of persons employed in an organization or place of work." See
· https://www.dictionary.com, viewed May 23, 2023. The statute makes a clear
distinction between "employees" and "specific public officers." See Va. Code Ann.§ 2.2-
3711. Using the term "personnel matters" as a catchall phrase to describe employees,
public officers, and appointees, would obfuscate the statutory requirement of specificity.
A lawful motion to close a public meeting to discuss the performance or discipline ofa
public officer must state the subject matter ofthe closed meeting unequivocally.
Given the verbiage used in the motion to close the meeting and the plain language
definition ofthe word "personnel," the Court concludes that the meeting was properly
closedfor the limited purpose of a discussion ofperformance matters relating to
employees. An elected school board member is not an employee. An elected school
board member is a public officer.1 Thus, the Court need not decide whether a school
board,without the specific authority to discipline a member in its rules, may lawfully
close a meeting pursuant to Virginia Code§2.2-2711(A). Pursuant to Virginia Code§
1 The parties appear to concede this point. See Petitioner's Brief at p. 4 and
Respondent's Briefat p. 4.
Page 2 of 3

5. I
2.2-3712(C), the December 14 clqsed meeting discussion had to be restricted to the
performance, demotion, salary disciplining or resignation of employees.
The portion ofthe closed meeting in which the Board discussed two elected school
board members improperly violated Virginia Code§ 2.2-3713 and is not exempt from
FOIA. The Court, therefore, concludes the School Board improperly ¼rithheld these
portions ofthe audio recording of the public record from the Petitioner.
The writ of mandamus is granted, and the Respondent is ordered to produce to the
Petitioner the portions of this recording that capture a discussion about the
performance ofspecific school board members. The audio recording entered as
evidence in this matter is not redacted to exclude those matters properly discussed in a
closed meeting. Consequently, the recording in evidence in this matter will remain
under seal.
The Respondent is further ordered to pay the Petitioner's reasonable attorney's fees in
the amount of $4000 and court costs in the amount of $60.00. Although the Court
finds the Petitioner substantially prevailed on the merits of this controversy, the
reduction in fees reflects the fact that the Petitioner possessed a copy ofthe withheld
record, obtained directly from Mr. Post, atthe commencement ofthis matter. The Court
finds this to be an unusual circumstance warranting a reduction in the award of actual
attorney's fees. See Va. Code Ann.§2.2-3713(D).
Finally, 2.2-3714(C) allows the Court to impose a civil penalty if the Court finds a public
bodyvoted to certify a closed meeting when closure was not in accordance with 2.2-
3712(D). Because the discussion recorded in this closed meeting as it relates to Mr.
Post, is so far outside the realm ofwhat a reasonable person could possibly consider a
professional discussion ofa public officer or employee's performance, the Court
concludes a penalty is appropriate and imposes a $250 civil penalty. Given the fact that
the true financial burden of this penalty most directly impacts the taxpayers of
Gloucester County and after considering the objections of Respondent's counsel, the
$250 civilpenalty is suspended.
This is the opinion ofthe Court.,
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Revere
ChiefJudge
9th Judicial District
cc: File
Page3 of3