Purcellville Vice Mayor Carl “Ben” Nett was suspended from office Thursday after Loudoun County Circuit Court granted the Commonwealth’s emergency motion to remove him pending the outcome of felony charges set for trial in October and December.
Judge Designate Randy I. Bellows issued the ruling at the close of a 2 p.m. hearing on three matters arising from Senate Bill 648, the state law that mandates suspension of any indicted officer in a Planning District 8 town with a 2020 census population between 8,000 and 10,000. Both parties agree Purcellville is the only town in Virginia that meets those criteria.
Bellows rejected all three constitutional challenges Nett’s counsel had raised against SB 648, finding the law was validly enacted and that its terms required suspension once the indictment was returned. The court also denied Nett’s separate motion to recover attorneys’ fees from his recent recall trial. A fourth motion — the Commonwealth’s request to vacate the April 27 jury verdict that declined to recall Nett — was expected to be taken up next, with a ruling possible as soon as Thursday evening or Friday.
Town Manager Kwasi Fraser, who faces related bid-rigging and commercial fraud charges, is also suspended without pay until his court hearing in December. The Town had previously placed him on paid administrative leave.
THE SUSPENSION MOTION
The Commonwealth’s emergency motion relied on SB 648, which Gov. Abigail Spanberger amended before signing to add an emergency effective date. That amendment caused the law to take effect immediately upon passage on April 22, 2026, rather than on the standard July 1 effective date.
Stafford County Commonwealth’s Attorney Eric L. Olsen, serving as special prosecutor, argued the law required immediate suspension and that the court could appoint a suitable person to act in Nett’s place. The motion was originally heard May 7, when Bellows set an expedited briefing schedule and continued Nett on bond.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE
In a 15-page memorandum filed May 14, Nett’s counsel Ryan Campbell of King, Campbell, Poretz & Mitchell had argued SB 648 was never properly enacted and that Virginia Code 15.2-1535.1 is not the law. Bellows rejected each of the three grounds.
Emergency enactment. Campbell’s central argument focused on the emergency enactment language the Governor added on April 13. Under Article IV, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution, emergency legislation requires a four-fifths vote in both houses. SB 648 was passed with a simple majority.
“The Governor cannot supply an emergency clause through the amendment process if doing so would allow the four-fifths requirement to be circumvented,” Campbell wrote.
Olsen countered that Article IV, Section 13 does not apply because the emergency language was not in the bill originally presented to the Governor, contending instead that Article V, Section 6(iii) controls: when both houses agree to the Governor’s entire recommendation by simple majority, the amended bill becomes law. Bellows agreed, finding the emergency clause was properly added through the Governor’s recommendation and approval process.
Bill of Attainder. Campbell argued the Governor’s recommendation also struck language that would have held a suspended officer’s compensation in escrow and returned it if the criminal proceedings resolved in the officer’s favor — a change he said “gutted” the Commonwealth’s position that the law was not a Bill of Attainder, an act declaring an individual guilty of a crime and imposing punishment without a trial. Bellows rejected the argument, finding SB 648 does not impose punishment without trial and applies prospectively to any officer who falls within its criteria.
Single Subject Rule. Campbell had also raised a challenge under Article IV, Section 12, arguing the bill’s title references members of governing bodies while the legislation also imposes a debt and infrastructure study, a remedial plan, council agenda requirements, and a town manager residency requirement. Bellows found the provisions all relate sufficiently to the bill’s overall subject to satisfy the rule.
Olsen had leaned on the presumption of constitutionality throughout, citing Virginia Supreme Court precedent that every reasonable doubt regarding a law’s constitutionality must be resolved in favor of its validity.
THE ATTORNEYS’ FEES MOTION
Under a separate scheduling order (CL25-2775), Bellows denied Nett’s motion to recover additional money from the Town for legal expenses incurred during his recall trial.
According to filings from Parrish Snead Franklin Simpson PLC, counsel spent more than 440 hours on the recall matter, with the week before trial and trial days alone requiring over 175 hours. The firm charged $280 per hour under a negotiated agreement with the Virginia Risk Sharing Association, which insures the Town — a significant discount from attorney Jennifer McGovern’s regular $425 hourly rate. The Commonwealth had projected a three-day trial, but proceedings ran six days, with more than $5,000 spent on a court reporter.
MOTION TO VACATE THE RECALL VERDICT
Olsen also asked Bellows to vacate the April 27 jury verdict that declined to remove Nett from office. The motion was filed after the standard post-trial deadline, and McGovern is expected to challenge it as untimely in addition to opposing it on the merits.
At issue is whether the jury had authority under the governing statute to decline removal after finding violations. Olsen argues a guilty finding leaves no discretion to decline removal, citing the statute’s use of “may.”
In the recall trial, the seven-member jury found Nett violated town policy and the Conflict of Interest Act but determined those findings did not justify removal.
Bellows had not yet reached the motion when court took up the other matters but was expected to take it up next and rule as soon as Thursday evening or Friday. If granted, the motion would vacate the recall verdict and could open the door to a removal — separate from Thursday’s suspension, which is pending the outcome of the criminal cases.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
Nett is removed from his vice mayor duties pending the outcome of the criminal cases. A ruling on the motion to vacate is expected within 24 hours. He faces separate criminal charges including bid-rigging, conspiracy, commercial fraud, and misuse of a law-enforcement database, with trials scheduled for October and December.
BACKGROUND
The legal saga began with an April 2025 recall petition filed by a group of residents identifying themselves as the Qualified Voters of Purcellville. Similar petitions were filed against Mayor Christopher Bertaut and councilmembers Carol Luke and Susan Khalil but have not moved forward.
Nett’s recall trial began April 20 and ran six days. On April 27, after roughly 10 hours of deliberations, the seven-member jury returned the split verdict that is now the subject of the motion to vacate. It was the first jury trial in decades on a petition to remove a sitting elected official in Virginia. Days before the verdict, Gov. Spanberger signed SB 648 into law with her emergency amendment attached. Olsen filed the emergency suspension motion the same day the jury declined to recall Nett.
