More Petitions to Remove School Board Members Eligible for Court Filing

The group Fight for Schools now has the signatures needed to file removal petitions against School Board members Denise Corbo (At-Large) and Ian Serotkin (Blue Ridge) in circuit court.

The petition for Corbo has 101% (10,902) of the signatures needed, while the petition for Serotkin has 125% (2,727). The news comes the day before a hearing for the case to remove Beth Barts (Leesburg).

To remove an elected official in Virginia, a petition must have a signature county equal to 10% of the votes cast in the previous election for that office. The petition is then reviewed by a judge, and, if accepted, the Commonwealth’s Attorney prosecutes the case. In the case of the effort to remove Corbo, that is still fewer signatures than the number of votes by which she won in 2019—in a three-way race, Corbo bested her nearest opponent, Julia Lee Sisson, by 10,588 votes, and the third challenger Kenya Savage by 40,345 votes.

Other School Board members facing a removal effort are Atoosa Reaser (Algonkian) and chair Brenda Sheridan (Sterling). Petitions have 66% (804) of signatures needed to remove Reaser, and 79% (638) to remove Sheridan.

The removal effort was sparked by board members’ involvement in a private Facebook group, Anti-Racist Parents of Loudoun County, where group members allegedly compiled lists of Loudouners opposed to the district’s racial equity efforts. While Virginia does not have a recall process, removal is possible if a court finds “neglect of duty, misuse of office, or incompetence in the performance of duties when that neglect of duty, misuse of office, or incompetence in the performance of duties has a material adverse effect upon the conduct of the office,” or after conviction for some crimes.

8 thoughts on “More Petitions to Remove School Board Members Eligible for Court Filing

  • 2021-10-04 at 4:30 pm

    I think it would be prudent for Fight For Schools to see what Judge Irby does with the Beth Barts case before moving forward with recall efforts for the other four board members. I’m optimistic that organizers have the best interests of Loudoun County at heart, particularly its children. If the recall effort turns out to be a prolonged exercise in futility, it may be better for organizers to rethink their strategy. Before you now it, the 2023 election will be here.

    • 2021-10-05 at 5:52 pm

      Tim – while I usually don’t agree with your posts I appreciate that they are always respectful and not trolling.

      In this case the other suits are truly necessary and personally I think they should have held off on Barts until that had these ready to go. Looking at the allegations, among other things is the claim that an illegal meeting was help. Well in order to establish that it needed to be more than one official. These case are need to establish that.if it were just Barts something is missing.

  • 2021-10-04 at 6:01 pm

    When good men and women don’t speak up, evil prevails. Thank you for your kind efforts in speaking up.

  • 2021-10-04 at 8:04 pm

    People need to speak with their votes. Too many people sit out these type of elections- school boards, mid-terms, etc. and then they get upset about what is going on. If we want to get rid of the maniacs that are currently on the school board, we need to get out and vote.

  • 2021-10-05 at 5:07 am

    Well done Fight for Schools people!
    Removing these five members should be a no brainer but you have a suspect commonwealth attorney and who knows what the judge will do!
    Keep up the good work!

  • 2021-10-05 at 6:47 am

    II sincerely hope Loudoun NEVER has another local election where the majority of registered voters choose not to bother to vote. Elections have consequences especially local elections! As a former two term Loudoun County School Board Member (2003-2011) these past two years have been an embarrassment to our county. Should it stay a mystery why our BOS stayed silent on the question of how $1.5 billion of our tax dollars was spent while schools were mostly closed last year? 🙂

    • 2021-10-05 at 11:00 am

      Really??? Well, schools weren’t “closed”, they were virtual, which means they still had 13,000 teachers and staff members to pay. This isn’t rocket science. You of all people should know that almost the entire budget (95% if I remember correctly) is salaries and benefits- which they contractually still had to pay.

      • 2021-10-05 at 5:58 pm

        What about the other 5% (which I suspect is not a valid number). Consider the following, bus drivers, gas, bus maintence, heat and ac of the buildings, cleaning crews and supplies, office supplies, snow removal, other admin services such as nurses and their supplies,, ect. So while salaries had to be paid by contract, what about the wages not contracted, and additional resources. Where is the money?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: