NVD Reporter Ignores Sources, Disparages Administrator

On January 28, Northern Virginia Daily reporter Alex Bridges requested documentation to support statements in my article about County Administrator Bradley Gotshall's departure (https://royalexaminer.com/transparency-to-opacity-professional-hiring-to-political-firing/). I provided him with email correspondence between Mr. Gotshall, the County Attorney, and the Board of Supervisors, along with a written explanation of why these public records were being disclosed in accordance with transparency principles and consistent with FOIA.

Mr. Bridges' January 29 article characterized Mr. Gotshall as someone who "quit" and "walked away with $113,000 severance after four months on the job." This is a malign narrative that contains a fundamental contradiction that a responsible reporter should have questioned: how does "quitting" trigger an obligation to provide severance? The answer is that being asked to resign under threat of termination, with no reason given, is contractually the same as termination without cause, despite the "resignation" label that makes it seem voluntary. "Quit" doesn't accurately fit into any of these events.

The County Attorney's January 27 email to supervisors explicitly states: "The Chair indicated to me that during the special meeting noticed for tomorrow it is likely that a majority of the Board would ask for Mr. Gotshall's resignation, and if that was not provided vote to terminate him." The Chair had directed the County Attorney to communicate this to Gotshall so he could "consider his potential response if he is asked to resign."

Mr. Gotshall's January 22 email shows a professional seeking to avoid "public bickering" and a "termination vote in an open forum" while noting "the fact that I was rebuffed when attempting to negotiate initial hiring as 'Interim Administrator' (with knowledge of an impending contested, tense election)."

These are not the words of someone quitting to collect a severance check. They are the words of someone forced to choose between resignation and public termination after just four months, with no accompanying explanation.

Mr. Bridges had this evidence when he wrote his article. He chose to ignore it in favor of a narrative that unfairly damages Mr. Gotshall's professional reputation. A man whose career is dedicated to public service deserves better than to be portrayed as someone gaming the system when documentary evidence shows he was for all intents and purposes pushed out without reasons given, and his resignation was accepted as tendered pursuant to his at-will employment agreement.

Mr. Bridges and the Northern Virginia Daily have an opportunity to correct the record by publishing a revised article that accurately reflects the documentary evidence. Readers deserve to know what actually happened.

When a reporter solicits documentation and then ignores what it reveals because it doesn't fit a narrative, that's not journalism-it's narrative promotion. And why would a reporter for a journalistic enterprise such as the Northern Virginia Daily be interested in doing that?