Weekly Edition

Gloucester political brouhaha prompts five indictments

Public outcry over a heavy-handed political turnover in a suburban Tidewater county led this month to a strongly worded special grand jury report and the misdemeanor indictments of five public officials. 

Now, as the Gloucester County commonwealth’s attorney prepares for criminal trials of fellow elected officials, citizens are circulating petitions to recall four members of the board of supervisors.

The story goes back to the elections of November 2007.   Voters chose new leadership for Gloucester County, a Middle Peninsula bedroom community where many residents find employment just across the York River in Newport News.  The growing county had been facing development pressures.  The board of supervisors was often split 5-to-2 on important votes.

After the election, Supervisor Teresa L. Altemus found herself with new power.  Previously one of the minority votes, Altemus had helped to elect two more allies to the seven-member board.  Moreover, the county administrator and the county attorney had turned in resignations.  Beginning in January 2008, Altemus and her three board allies could expect to control the selection of new top officials and to hold the rightful reins of the county government.

According to the grand jury report, it was the haste and the heavy-handed tactics of the new power bloc that now has them facing criminal trials and recall petitions.  The jurors concluded that Altemus and her allies “conspired to seize control of [the board] to the exclusion of the majority.”

The outcry was ignited by the board’s organizational meeting on Jan. 2.  The board elected Altemus as chairman and promptly fired the administrator and county attorney, whose resignations had not yet become effective.  The board announced the hiring of a new county administrator, to start immediately.  Then, in the early morning hours of Jan. 3, Altemus and others retrieved information from the computers of the county administrator and county attorney.

The Gloucester citizenry was soon in an uproar about the way the political winds had shifted at the county seat. 

Commonwealth’s Attorney Robert D. Hicks says his office got an earful, with the main concern being a possible violation of Virginia’s open meeting law.  “The local Rotary Club asked me to look into that,” he said.

Hicks said that when he tried to learn the circumstances of the pre-arranged hiring of the new administrator, Altemus and her allies refused to talk to him voluntarily.  He ultimately concluded that he could not show a violation of the Freedom of Information Act.  “They knew what they were doing,” he said.  “They successfully sidestepped the law.”

Hicks said the outcry continued, with about 80 letters to his office requesting a special grand jury investigation.  He said he even heard a rumor that a regular grand jury might take on its own investigation of the political maneuverings, as allowed under Virginia law.

Faced with the pressure, Hicks said he determined to empanel the special grand jury.

In their report, the 10 grand jurors were nothing if not emphatic.  “We cannot express strongly enough … our concern at the arrogance and duplicity exhibited by these four supervisors, who we believe have demonstrated nothing but contempt for their constituents and this grand jury ….,” the panel wrote.

Responding to a suggestion from Michelle R. Ressler, Altemus’s board ally, that the jurors had hijacked the judicial system, the jurors wrote, “On the contrary, it is Ms. Ressler and her cronies who have hijacked the government of our fair County, seemingly determined to run it into the ground for their own reasons and with no concern for the public good.”

“I was surprised at how strong the language was,” said Hicks.  He explained the jurors unanimously demanded the tough wording.  He also was surprised, he said, by the indictment of the county’s newly elected sheriff.  According to Hicks, the jurors demanded a criminal charge against the sheriff for helping Altemus to seize the computer of the county attorney.

The grand jury report alleges three distinct criminal violations.  First, the grand jury accuses four of the supervisors of transacting public business without authority by effectively hiring the new administrator at private meetings before the official takeover.

Second, the grand jury alleges that taking information from the county attorney’s computer was unlawful search and seizure and computer trespass.

Third, the report claims that two board members misused their authority to try to pressure a county planner to reverse his decisions on two pending subdivision applications.  The subdivisions were projects of a Gloucester developer with close ties to the new board majority.

The grand jury reports that it uncovered “unrelated criminal acts” by that developer, who now also faces indictments.

The computer seizure was troublesome, according to the report, because the county attorney also had private clients, allowed under his contract with the county.  Furthermore, as attorney for the county school board, he was adverse to Altemus.  She was a local school employee with a pending lawsuit against the school board.

The former county attorney, Daniel M. Stuck, is now of counsel with the Gloucester firm of Dusewicz, Soberick & Shaw.  He said he was taken aback on Jan. 2 when the ax fell on both him and the administrator.  “I was a little surprised that they would want to terminate our employment at the same time,” he said.

Norfolk attorney William E. Rachels Jr. denies any criminal conduct by Altemus.  Rachels represented her in the grand jury investigation.  “The matter appears to be disagreements over judgments which she and others made on … governmental matters in Gloucester,” he said.

Even though Hicks, the commonwealth’s attorney, may be helping to unseat legitimately elected officials, he defended the investigation.  He said the majority used their rightful power in improper ways.  “It’s about process – how you go about doing it.”

He also rejected the idea of having an outsider take on the investigation: “Some jobs are just too dirty to ask a special prosecutor to come in and do.  Sometimes you just have to roll up your sleeves and do it yourself.”

Hicks’ involvement with the county’s political direction may not end with the criminal cases against the four board members and the sheriff.  Under Virginia law, Hicks is required to prosecute the recall petitions once the disgruntled citizens file them in the circuit court.

© Copyright 2008, by Virginia Lawyers Media, all rights reserved