Charles City citizens lash out at leadership as funds approved to pay for legal fees for supervisor

Decisions made by Charles City County’s Board of Supervisors are continuing to draw the ire of citizens. The latest decision by county leadership has drawn major concerns and questions about the possibility of a conflict of interest being violated.

Charles City’s Board of Supervisors voted 2-1 to approve $53,350 to pay in legal fees for a petition that was filed to remove board member Byron Adkins Sr. that ultimately failed.

At the beginning of the business portion of the meeting, District 1 representative Ryan Patterson asked that contractual legal fees for the county’s forensic audit and the legal fees to pay for the petition to be separated for discussion. After the three board members voted unanimously to pay for the contractual legal fees for the forensic audit, concerns were raised by Patterson about paying the fees that were used to fight the petition to remove Adkins.

Discussion between the board members about whether there was a conflict of interest involved as Adkins was involved. According to the county attorney, he could only offer legal advice on the matter, referring it to Charles City Commonwealth’s Attorney Tyler Klink. Klink recused himself and the matter was sent to New Kent Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office, who said that based on case law and reading it, there was no conflict of interest involved due to Adkins not receiving any type of gain or benefit from the issue.

Still, citizens sounded off in the crowd in disgust on the topic as they were unable to speak on the matter before the vote. Patterson argued that he did not receive any information regarding the issue and that he remains steadfast on not voting for something if he doesn’t have enough information. After a little more discussion, District 2 Supervisor Michael Hill motioned for approval to cover the expenses for the legal fees in regards to the petition. The motion passed 2-1, with Adkins and Hill in favor and Patterson against it.

During the public comment period, citizens did not hold back on the decision, criticizing board members on approving county funds for a legal matter that they deemed should have been an expense to Adkins due to him hiring private counsel.

“It’s mind blowing to me,” commented Brandi Morano. “When lawyers write receipts, they are itemized and accounted for.

“It’s ridiculous that Mr. Patterson has to sit up there and not have supporting documentation on this issue,” she said. “Mr. Adkins, I don’t live in your district but it’s disturbing that my tax money still has to pay for your representation.

“It’s deplorable that you’d come into an elected office and act so cavalier about our finances; it’s disgusting,” Morano concluded.

Bill Hopke approached the lectern, speaking about his time in a position of leadership and compared it to Adkins’ role.

“If someone is sued, I understood that the organization may properly provide defense,” he said, referencing his time in the corporate world. “I had to produce records and testify, and my answers had to be truthful.

“Mr. Adkins was never required to testify in the removal proceeding and never required to sign an affidavit,” Hopke continued. “The dismissal of the case did not provide the answers that caused the litigation in the first place.

“This action [to approve paying the legal fees] was deferred twice in 2025 because there was no cap in the amount that could be spent,” Hopke added. “If Charles City taxpayers are being told to pay $53,350 for these fees, I believe it’s reasonable to ask in return accountability and transparency.

“I also ask that the county attorney cites the statutory vote and that any supervisor voting for reimbursement provide written certification related to Mr. Adkins,” Hopke concluded.”

Martha Harris compared the spending of $53,000 to a situation that District 3, the area that Adkins represents, is dealing with when it comes to emergency services.

“We are paying $53,000 for two attorneys he (Adkins) hired on his own and that’s ridiculous,” she began. “I don’t understand how in 2025 Mr. Adkins abstained on the vote to defer, but now he voted on it.

“For those who don’t know, a post was made on social media that Fire Station #3 was closed for 20 days in the past 11 weeks due to understaffing,” Harris continued. “That is 25 percent of the time.

“It takes approximately 25-26 minutes for Fire Station 2 to get to ‘Down the County’ people,” she said as she wrapped up her comments. “We could have used that money to pay for Fire and EMS, but instead we have to rely on mutual aid from James City County, New Kent, Prince George, and Hopewell to get to us first.”

Another issue that sparked concern from some citizens is county leadership entering into an agreement with Charles City County Public Schools to take control of their wastewater plant. Charles City County Administrator Keith Rogers Jr. commented that taking control of the system would allow the county to proceed with their goal of creating a regional wastewater plant for the area.

However, that was also met with backlash, as Harris spoke about the issues the county has had with Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) over their wastewater plants. Harris spoke about the conditions of the current plants and referenced numerous fines and violations the currently have, specifically pointing out the Ruthville Wastewater Plant where money was invested in the past few years to fix it, only to be in violation again.

“The school is in compliance. It’s deplorable about how you are trying to fix your problems.”

Preston Adkins, who also served on the Charles City’s School Board, commented about the decision for the county to take over the wastewater plant.

“I am disappointed about the decision about the wastewater treatment plant,” he said. “When the county was in charge of it when I was on the school board, it was in violation with DEQ.

“The school took it over and we got it back into compliance,” Adkins added. “Now, the county is taking over it again. I haven’t seen the county do a project, complete one, or make a project right. I haven’t seen it in 30 years.”

During board directives, Hill commented about his decision to support paying the fees for the petition.

“Regardless of what people might think, I treat everyone equal,” Hill said as he began his monologue. “It doesn’t matter who it is; if I don’t see something illegal, then I’m going to vote the way I think that I should.

“Now, if you bring me some evidence that something has been proven illegal, and by all means I’m going to stand for what the law says. The old saying is you’re innocent until proven guilty.

“I had to vote with my conscious and that’s what I did,” Hill said as he begin to wrap up his comments. “I haven’t been shown anything illegal. I hear the laughing and snickering and the comments, but this is serious to me. If something has been done illegally I would have voted the other way.”