|
Jerry |
By MELISSA NIX
A filing in Spotsylvania County Circuit Court alleges Spotsylvania School Superintendent Jerry Hill obstructed justice by directing School Board members to forward questions from a detective investigating possible election law violations to the board's counsel. It also alleges he deleted portions of a memo before providing it to the detective.
During a June 26 hearing in the case, Spotsylvania County Circuit Court Judge George Mason ordered King George County Commonwealth's Attorney Matt Britton to detail his evidence in support of the obstruction charge.
Britton is handling the case because Spotsylvania Commonwealth's Attorney Bill Neely recused himself. Neely's wife works in Spotsylvania schools.
According to the "bill of particulars" Britton filed, Hill sent a memo to School Board members on Sept. 30 after a county detective began to investigate the legality of a flier circulated by the School Board earlier that month.
Board members paid for and distributed the fliers after the Board of Supervisors voted to put a $41 million school-bond referendum on the November ballot.
School Board members had sought $184 million worth of bonds.
Supervisors demanded an investigation into whether the fliers violated a state election law.
When asked about his filing, Britton declined to comment on any part of it.
"Those are qualitative questions and this case is pending in court," he said, adding that answering questions before the trial potentially poisons the jury pool. "I cannot give you a quote on the substance of the allegations. We want an unbiased jury pool so that the defendant can get a fair trial."
Britton alleges that in his memo, Hill, "citing purported advice of counsel," recommended School Board members not answer any questions from the detective and to direct any questions posed by the detective to the district's legal counsel.
Britton's filing states that when the detective submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the memo, the part about not answering questions was deleted:
" defendant intentionally and without notice, notation or comment, altered at least one document, the September 30 memo, by deleting [original emphasis] those portions of the memo that directed the School Board not to speak to law enforcement."
The state Freedom of Information Act allows for redactions for specific exemptions, as long as the redaction is noted and the appropriate exemption cited.
A copy of the memo Hill's attorney provided to The Free Lance-Star does include a notation that information dealing with "advice of counsel" had been omitted.
Frosty Landon, executive director of the Virginia Coalition for Open Government, said "it seems to me the school superintendent did the right thing."
If the memo's redaction pertained to legal advice, it is specifically exempt under the Freedom of Information Act, Landon said.
"You must tell the requester that you have omitted [the legal advice], but there's no part of the law that says you have to give notice other than that," he said.
Britton also alleges the School Board violated the FOIA on Sept. 12, by going into closed session to discuss the legality of the flier with counsel, without meeting the legal requirements or giving proper notice.
However, the Sept. 12 meeting's agenda and minutes both note the FOIA exemption invoked for the closed session.
The minutes describe the portion of the closed meeting as "Consultation with legal counsel on a matter requiring confidential legal counsel "
"The School Board has every right to meet with counsel privately to determine whether the fliers meet the attorney's threshold for legality," said Landon, stressing that he is not an attorney.
When asked to elaborate on this allegation and Landon's interpretation, Britton again refused.
"At this point [the bill] speaks for itself," he said. "It's a summary of allegations against the defendant as asked for by the defense. People can make up their minds when the full evidence comes out in court. I'll make a statement after the trial."
Hill was indicted in February on charges of an election law violation and obstruction of justice. The election law violation charge was dismissed at the motions hearing on June 26. The jury trial begins Aug. 28.
A conviction on the obstruction of justice charge carries a penalty of up to a year in jail and a $2,500 fine.
Hill had no comment on the recent filing. He directed questions to his lawyer, Steven Webster, of Webster Book, LLP, in Leesburg.
"We will be filing additional motions now that the purported basis of that [obstruction of justice] charge is clear to us," Webster said.
To reach MELISSA NIX:
Email: mnix@freelancestar.com
