Former Patrick County Administrator Under Investigation for "Alleged Criminal Wrongdoing"
According to Patrick County Commonwealth’s Attorney Dayna Kendrick Bobbitt, the County’s former administrator Beth Simms is currently under investigation.
According to Patrick County Commonwealth’s Attorney Dayna Kendrick Bobbitt, the County’s former administrator Beth Simms is currently under investigation. This revelation comes after Bobbitt withheld 19 pages of public records under the "criminal investigative files” exemption in Virginia FOIA.
On January 1, 2026, I emailed Bobbitt along with the members of the Patrick County Board of Supervisors and about a dozen other County officials, in part requesting in accordance with Virginia FOIA:
(1) Any records indicating the reason(s) for Ms. Simms’ resignation;
(2) Any video footage of the interior of the administration building on Rucker Street between 7pm on Monday, November 17, 2025 and 7am on Tuesday, November 18, 2025;(3) Any records mentioning any allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Ms. Simms.
This request came a little over a month after former county administrator Simms’ mysterious resignation. Here’s a brief report from The Enterprise at the time:
Following a lengthy closed session meeting on Monday, the Patrick County Board of Supervisors accepted the resignation of County Administrator Beth Simms.
Jonathan Wood, chairman and of the Peters Creek District, said Simms tendered her resignation, which the board accepted.
In a motion by Vice Chair Andrew Overby of the Dan River District, and seconded by Clayton Kendrick of the Mayo River District, the board voted to appoint Mike McGuinness as interim county administrator, effective Tuesday, November 18.
Wood and Doug Perry, of the Smith River District, supported the 4-1 vote.
Steve Marshall, of the Blue Ridge District, abstained.
McGuinness was hired in September 2024 as the county’s facilities director.
Simms was hired in September 2023 and began work the following month.
Board members declined to comment after the meeting, citing the personnel exemption.
On January 7, 2026, Bobbitt responded to my FOIA request in pertinent part:
Item 1-No such record exists
Item 2-No such record or footage exists
Item 3-Materials requested are exempt from FOIA disclosure pursuant to the Code of Virginia §§ 2.2-3706.1(A)(C) and §2.2-3706.1(E).
I responded four days later:
Thank you for that response. Just to clarify, when you cite “§§2.2-3706.1(A)(C),” do you mean 2.2-3706.1(C) pertaining to criminal investigative files? Or do you mean (A) which seems to pertain to definitions? Regardless, please understand that your response is not compliant with VA FOIA, as Va. Code § 2.2-3704(B)(1) requires you to tell me the volume and subject matter of the records you’re withholding in their entirety.
Please let me know how many records you’re withholding and their subject matter as it pertains to Item 3 of my FOIA request.
The next day, January 12, 2026, Bobbitt responded in compliance with the law:
The exemption set forth in Va. Code § 2.2-3706.1(C) applies to the record you seek, as it constitutes a criminal investigative file. Va. Code § 2.2-3706.1(E) is also applicable. I included subsection (A) solely to reference the statutory definition of what qualifies as a “criminal investigative file.”
I am in possession of one document, consisting of 19 pages, and the subject matter involves alleged criminal wrongdoing by Ms. Beth Simms that is currently under investigation.
Va. Code § 2.2-3706.1(C) reads:
Criminal investigative files relating to an ongoing criminal investigation or proceeding are excluded from the mandatory disclosure provisions of this chapter, but may be disclosed by the custodian, in his discretion, except as provided in subsection E or where such disclosure is prohibited by law.
As responses from other Patrick County officials continue to trickle in, we may learn more about the circumstances surrounding Simms’ resignation. And depending on Bobbitt’s investigation, we may end up reading all the details in public court records, outside the purview of FOIA exemptions that keep the truth swept neatly under the rug.
This is exactly the kind of accountability journalism we need right now. I def appreciate your thoroughness in following up with the FOIA requests and documenting everything. Having worked in local government myself, I know how frustraiting it can be to get these records released. Your persistance in pursuing this story is really commendable.
This is a fascinating piece of political theater, but readers should be very cautious about drawing conclusions from the headline.
First, it's critical to understand how this "investigation" likely began. If a single county supervisor—past or present—makes a formal accusation of wrongdoing against an administrator, the Commonwealth's Attorney is essentially obligated to open a file and "investigate." It's a procedural step, not an indicator of guilt. In the hyper-political environment of Patrick County, this mechanism is a well-worn tool for character assassination. To publicly brand a former administrator—one who has already been the target of campaigns by certain factions on the board—as under criminal investigation before any findings are made is, at this point, little more than slander for political image management.
Second, look closely at the "investigative" details here. Josh Stanfield’s FOIA request didn't cast a wide net; it contained a surgically precise demand: video footage from inside the administration building for a very specific 12-hour overnight window. The obvious question Mr. Stanfield doesn't answer is: How did he arrive at that exact date and timeframe? The answer is self-evident: this information was funneled to him by officials with an agenda. This isn't investigative journalism; it's stenography for a pre-arranged narrative.
The irony is thick. While Mr. Stanfield loudly proclaims a mission against corruption and for transparency, this exercise demonstrates he is actively pandering to some of the most corrupt officials in Patrick County. He has been working diligently since at least early 2024 to cast me in a false light through various channels and has recently demanded I submit to his own form of censorship. He is, of course, free to publish what he likes. But buyer beware. When it comes to Mr. Stanfield’s journalistic integrity, I've found the contents rarely match the label. This article is a prime example.