The Shadow
COVINGTON VA (Virginian Review) – In the Virginian Review’s ongoing investigation of alleged unethical activities within the City of Covington, Vice Mayor David Crosier and Small Business Coordinator Terri McClung are apparently continuing to roadblock access to public records. Both public servants have reportedly and repeatedly denied multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for city communications records conducted on their personal mobile devices. If true, their refusal to release these communications violates the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, which requires public officials to provide access to records related to public business, even if stored on personal devices.
In response to the allegations, Vice Mayor Crosier has consistently maintained that he does not use his personal mobile device for official city business as Vice Mayor and city representative. The City stated in an official response to the FOIA, “David does not do business on text.”
However, evidence suggests otherwise. The Virginian Review has seen several examples of Crosier’s city business communications sent from his personal device while performing official duties for the City. Crosier also published his phone number directly on the City of Covington’s official website, further substantiating evidence that he invites taxpayers to communicate city business with him directly through his personal device.
In an apparent attempt to deliberately delay and further obstruct public access to these records, the City has hired an outside IT consultant to perform the search, at an unjustified, unreasonable, and exorbitant cost of $80/hour. The City stated, “We do not have an IT department. The only means of getting cell phone information is for us to have an IT professional do the search.”
The IT company hired to search Crosier’s device took 3 hours, or $240 to search for one specific text where the Virginian Review provided the exact date and timeframe the texts occurred. The IT company then stated, “No messages related to City business during the requested time frame.” However, it seems there is an appearance of a biased relationship between Crosier and the IT company.
Mr. Crosier confirmed this strong relationship by stating to the IT company’s owner in a social media comment on April 11, 2024, “You’ve pulled my fat out of the fire many times.” In another comment, the owner of the IT company stated to Crosier, “Brother, do you know how hard it is for me to keep my mouth shut right now!!!” raising substantial concerns of apparent threats to reveal confidential information to Crosier what the IT company was trusted to maintain as a vendor to companies that Crosier allegedly does not like. This direct appearance of bias and threat of revealing client confidential information presents not only a blatant conflict of interest, but a potential violation of several State and Federal privacy laws. It undermines the integrity and credibility of Crosier, the IT company, and of the search process.
Even while evidence of the texts from Crosier exists, both Crosier and the IT company still maintain there are no business texts on Crosier’s mobile phone. This potentially means either the texts have been intentionally destroyed, or the IT consultant’s statement is false. Willful destruction or intentional withholding of public records is a serious offense, as it undermines transparency and accountability in government. Under Virginia law, such actions are considered a violation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and can result in significant legal consequences, including fines, criminal charges, and loss of public trust.
Earlier in the year, the Virginian Review submitted a FOIA request for records on Mayor Tom Sibold’s personal mobile device. The Mayor had no issues with searching, finding, and forwarding those texts. This precedent does not support the City’s claim that it requires an outside IT consultant, as searching text communications seems to be a basic skill set that even the Mayor can perform. Crosier’s attempt to impose these unjustified external actions and excessive fees can be seen as furthering a deliberate obstruction of justice and intentionally roadblocking public access to records.
Withholding of City records is apparently not only limited to just the Vice Mayor. The Virginian Review also FOIA-requested city records from Covington’s Small Business Coordinator. In an official response to this FOIA, the City stated, “Terri McClung does not use text for City business. Terri’s meetings are held in person in her office.”
The City is apparently also refusing to release her records, despite evidence that proves otherwise. The City maintains that McClung does not have the skills for basic searching of texts on her own phone and has also implemented an IT consultant shield and charging $80/hour to search her phone. If the number of texts is close to the number the Virginian Review has seen and anticipates, the search could run into thousands of dollars in fees.
If these two city public servants continue to withhold the requested communications without a valid legal exemption, they may face legal action in Court with a Petition for Injunction, legally forcing them to provide the requested city documents. Such violations can also result in penalties, including fines and legal costs, which could further complicate their positions. Currently, the estimated penalty for deleted or withheld texts is up to $100/text. In the specific timeframe requested, Crosier sent an estimated 22 individual texts.
However, the question remains, if they’ve acted ethically and in good faith while conducting city business on their personal devices, why are they erecting such a significant and costly barrier to accessing this information that is owned by the public?
