Response from Matt Lohr's Office

On Monday I sent the following email to Del. Matt Lohr:

Hi Del. Lohr. In light of the recent controversy surrounding the petition to oust
Rebecca Neal from her post as City Treasurer, months before her criminal trial,
I am wondering if you can seek an opinion from the Attorney General about
whether she could have simply been suspended pending her criminal felony trial
under state code 24.2-236, which references "a judicial proceeding under 24.2-231" as a grounds for possible suspension pending the hearing. What is a judicial proceeding under 24.2-231 if not the felony trial itself?

Today I received the following email in reply:

Thank you for your email and request. Unfortunately, the Attorney General will not provide opinions on issues that are under current litigation.

Please find the following contact information if you'd like to contact the Attorney Generals office directly to see if they are able to provide you with any additional case law or past opinions that would provide you with information that may be helpful in your research.

Ms. Jacolyn Kotvas
Office of Attorney General
900 East Main Street
Sixth Floor
Richmond, VA 23219
804-786-2071

Sincerely,

Audrey Berkshire

Myron Rhodes reported this morning that the Attorney General spoke on WSVA about the matter, saying, "I’m aware of no other statute that would permit a judge to suspend a constitutional officer on his own motion, until that officer has been convicted of a felony offense, except by petition of the people."

I find that statement rather odd in light of the fact that state code 24.2-236 says the circuit court can suspend an official pending the hearing in four types of judicial proceedings, and only one of those four (24.2-233) has to do with a "petition of the people." What needs to happen now to get an official opinion from the Attorney General (rather than just a quick answer on a radio show) on what constitutes a "judicial proceeding under 24.2-231"? And seeing this response, maybe he should address what constitutes a judicial proceeding under 24.2-232 and 24.2-234 as well.

UPDATE: I just spoke to Ms. Kotvas at the AG's office, and she said she received an email that they wouldn't be able to comment on this because litigation is pending. She said that after the litigation was settled, then Del. Lohr (or other officials allowed to do so) could seek an official opinion from the AG. Hmmm...