Politician Peter Candland missed work 2/3rds of the time as a member of the Budget Committee.
Peter Candland says his experience on a County Supervisor’s Budget Committee shows how he will work for us as Supervisor. But records show that Peter Candland missed 2/3rds of the meetings during his time on the committee. If Peter Candland can’t be trusted to show up to official meetings, how can we trust him to be there for us as our next Supervisor?
Missed 2/3rds of meetings
Peter Candland missed 13 of the 19 Budget Committee meetings while he was a member. That’s about 2/3rds of the time Peter Candland just didn’t show up.
This is the committee that helps our Supervisor make decisions on important issues like taxes and funding for local roads and schools. Yet Peter Candland failed in his responsibility to show up for these meetings.
Missed 90% of meetings in 2010
Missing committee meetings is a pattern for Peter Candland. In February of 2010, he temporarily removed himself from the committee during a critical period of time. And he missed nine consecutive meetings, attending only 1 of the 10 meetings held last year.
We need leaders who will fight every day for our families. We can’t count on Peter Candland if he doesn’t show up.
Paid for and authorized by Hendley for Supervisor.
Vote NO on Peter Candland.
He’s not ready to be County Supervisor.
Is it still partisian when a republican says the same thing as a democrat. Maybe not every issue can be so easily maligned by Peter Candland. Martha is a loyal republican who was completely disrespected by Candland and his team. Why Stirrup supported that behavior is really unfathomable to me.
I don’t live in Candland’s district, but if I did, he would not get my vote for whatever little value it is.
@Elena
Perhaps it is because Stirrup see himself in Candland. As I understand it, Stirrup was not a regular attendee at BVOCS meetings. Correct?
Here’s a partial list of Stirrup’s missed votes. Some meetings he was simply late and missed the Approval of the Minutes, other times he was completely absent.
But here is a partial list of missed votes:
December 7, 2010
April 6, 2010
January 19, 2010
September 22, 2009
July 14, 2009
June 2, 2009
June 23, 2009
June 16, 2009
May 12, 2009
February 10, 2009
June 3, 2008
May 6, 2008
March 4, 2008
December 11, 2007
September 11, 2007
September 18, 2007
September 4, 2007
August 7, 2007
June 19, 2007
February 6, 2007
October 3, 2006
July 25, 2006
March 15, 2005
December 14, 2004
September 14, 2004
June 22, 2004
June 15, 2004
May 18, 2004
April 6, 2004
March 18, 2004
March 9, 2004
February 24, 2004
February 3, 2004
January 20, 2004
Maybe everyone should step back and look at the facts.
First, Pete Candland won the Republican Primary. Martha Hendley lost. There is a reason why one candidate wins over another, and it typically is rooted in the kind of campaign that is waged.
Whether you like it or not, Candland was the victor.
A good argument can be made that Martha Hendley is not a “loyal Republican.” Lots of Republican candidates who were defeated just sucked it up and — for the good of the Party and, more importantly, for the general philosophy the Party represents — they set aside the personal hurt of losing and pitch in and help the candidate who won the nomination.
That is equally true of the Democratic Party candidates.
Martha Hendley feels like she was disrespected. Maybe she even was. That happens in politics. Campaigns are contact sports. Martha gave as good as she got, and the only difference is that she lost this contest.
Martha was apparently wrong on the Candland record on the Budget Committee — just as Ann Wheeler is wrong.
At the end of the day, it is a voluntary advisory committee to John Stirrup. Stirrup has spoken out definitively on this issue, and Stirrup says he asked Pete Candland to stay on after Candland sent in his resignation. Stirrup says as follows: “I value Peter’s opinion so much that I asked him to stay on as a member of my volunteer committee and participate by email and by advising me personally. Over that year, Peter provided key insight to me and I was able to see his thoughtfulness and devotion to the taxpayers of Prince William County.”
Case closed.
Those who don’t like it, get over it.
It is John Stirrup’s committee, and he can run it any way he wants. He asked Peter to stay on in a configuration Stirrup was comfortable with.
A good friend of mine was a devoted Hendley supporter and a devoted Republican. His assessment is telling: “I supported Martha to the bitter end, even when it looked bad and her attacks were pretty mean-spirited. But if I knew then that she would refuse to support the candidate who won the Republican primary, then she would never have gotten my vote.”
That pretty much sums it up for most good Republicans.
It hurts to lose, but losing gracefully requires summoning up personal dignity as well.
Martha has worked to hard for too long to throw her legacy overboard among Republicans.
It appears she is headed down that path.
Ann Wheeler’s supporters are milking it for all they are worth — just look at this blog.
Supporters of Martha are hurting too, but in the end the reality is that they too have to accept the will of the majority.
It is easy to look behind all of this and accuse Candland of “disrespecting” Martha. I suspect in every campaign one person can say the very same thing about their opponent. The great ones put the personal feelings aside and support the greater good (whichever Party they belong to).
@Gainesville First – Politics 2nd
Are you that Mad-Dog Mac Haddow? If you aren’t you sure have a twin out there in the Gainesville District.
I do not own a dog, mad or otherwise.
Are you Al Gore?
What in the world is this conversation devolving to.
(Sorry, I don’t know who “Mad-dog Mac Haddow” is.)
I guess a full confession is in order. I also did not know that Moonhowlings was not authored by Elena (I mistakenly believed it was). I was informed otherwise, and then I was further confused because it appears the administrative privileges are shared by several people on this blog.
So I guess those of us who choose to use avatar names suffer from a number of maladies.
He’s just a person that’s been pitbullish pushing for Candland. His rants remind me an awful lot of yours. I read a lot of local blogs, online news and FB. Sorry if you can’t handle a little sarcasm.
Yeah, I’m Al Gore after his sex change. 🙂
Gainesville first,
I appreciate your respectful discussion tone. Martha did lose, what a shame. Her loss was not based on merit, that is for sure. Having said that, let’s stick with the issue. Peter Candland has been touting his experience in the county based on his budget committee participation.
Gainesville First Politics Second,
“Stirrup says he asked Pete Candland to stay on after Candland sent in his resignation.”
My problem is not with what Stirrup allowed or didn’t allow. It is with Candland’s resignation. Why did he resign? I read an email somewhere and I don’t recall the exact wording but it said something about time constraints and his inability to serve on the committee.
Why does he have more time to serve as Supervisor than he did as an appointee? It appears from things that I have read is that he simply will not have the time necessary to devote to the office.
@Gainesville First – Politics 2nd
I don’t understand why Stirrup didn’t speak out during the primary when this issue first came up. Such a delaly and speaking out for Candland is concerning to me. By the same token I do also understand with R’s fighting for his seat, why he would wait. However, to wait until the 11th hour to speak on Peter’s behalf, seems like back-peddling of sorts to me. What do I know, I’m just a voter in the in-town portion of the Gainesville District, and our area doesn’t seem to matter to Candland, and certainly with this comment in his initial announcement email for his bid at the seat. This omitted an entire area of the Gainesville District. Not too smart, imo
“and continuing to make Gainesville/Haymarket a great place for our children and grandchildren to grow up.
Over the next few days I will be sending out more information. Thank you again for all your help over the last few years and look forward to working with all of you in the future.
Sincerely,
Pete Candland
Hello, Mr. Candland, what about those folks living “in-town”(Manassas of the Gainesville District)? This email said NOTHING about those folks that were basically all there was to the Gainesville District a decade ago. This did not set well with many of my neighbors that have lived in the Gainesville District longer than he’s been alive. I’ve never seen a candidate completely dismiss an entire area and that’s heavily populated.
You said it!!!!
I heard lots of bragging that Peter could bring in a lot of votes from his church. Several locals have verified this statement.
Maybe that is why Martha didn’t win.
I expect the same thing will happen this next election also. It explains a great deal.
@Elena
I cannot explain why Pete Candland offered his resignation, or why Stirrup asked him to stay or why Stirrup did not speak up until now.
It could just be a set of priorities in terms of his time. Politicians make these decisions all the time. Why not serve as a staffer on the Hill rather than run for Congress?
Ego? I suspect that is the reason in a lot of cases.
Personal satisfaction with being the one to make the decisions on how to vote on issues?
Maybe because the potential candidate thinks he or she is the better person? I hope that’s the controlling reason.
I am not in a position to judge, nor do I think anyone else is except for the candidates.
A lot has been said about how Candland promised Hendley he would not run, and then reneged on that commitment.
I heard a different spin that involved a scenario that another person was going to run and then she pulled out. That, supposedly, changed the landscape for Candland and he jumped in.
If so, so what. In fact, so what if Candland reneged on some statement he would not run.
The election was decided on how the issues were played out, and how the campaigns were run.
I don’t think anyone voted because of the back-story being trotted out now.
Just my two cents.
@Gainesville First – Politics 2nd
Martha and Ann weren’t wrong. I believe the problem comes from defining the word ‘serve.’
To most people, if you serve on a committee, you are there. If there was some other arrangement, all those on the committee should have been aware.
Here is the problem–if Candland only actively served a year but remained in an advisory capacity for 2 years, then say that. Don’t say “I served on the committee for three years” when those serving on the committee and doing the work didn’t see you. That’s the problem.
It appears he padded his resume. Right now we are all fighting over weasel words. Stirrup is defending him on a technicality. How about Candland just spell it out openly and honestly in the first place and not make someone have to dig for it.
We have beaten this horse to death. Pete Candland wasn’t as forthcoming as he could have been. That looks bad. My real fight isn’t over that. My real fight is that Candland took up with some dishonest folks and listened to lies about Elena. I am sure she would be willing to sit down and explain her positions on the issues that made Candland wince. He might be surprised. Regardless, you just don’t attack a local blogger who doesn’t have a fight with you. Its a foolish thing to do.
Elena and I had no fight with Peter. He and those he has associated with made it happen and it won’t go away when the election is over either. He owes her an apology.
And for the record, I am Moon-howler. Elena and I are the blog owners and administrators. I prefer to use a moniker. You may call me Moon. Many people including my off line friends often call me that.
She authors some of the articles and I author some. You can look up top right under the title to see which of us is the guilty party. Occassionally we both author the same article. It will say.
I hope that clears it up.
It does clear it up — I have only lurked from afar until recently and not really paid close attention to the players. I think I have it down now.
The horse has been beaten badly. Maybe we can only hope it is dead now.
Thanks.
good one Gainesville First, we have definately beaten this horse severely!
I have enjoyed the “mostly” thoughtful debate (except some random comment about my backside 😉 )
@ GFP2nd
Hopefully you will lurk and comment on some of our other topics. We try to vary things and I, for one, will be darn glad when this election is over. We had not intended to get involved. We do appreciate your point of view.
I am one of the ‘in-towners.’ Elena lives out in the Haymarket/Gainesville area.
I just went to the mailbox and pulled out campaign fliers. First off, I pulled out Bob Marshall’s I am wonderful flier. He failed to mention that he wants to make abortion and contraception illegal in Virginia. He always puts me in a bad mood because he doesn’t announce his real agenda in his fliers.
Then I landed on a Candland one that said Ann Wheeler and Barack Obama meant higher taxes for PWC. Now is Candland saying that Ann Wheeler and Obama are BBF? Give me a break.
He calls Ann a liberal. Is that a bad word? He used it as a bad word against Elena. I suspect just about anyone is left of Candland…that doesn’t make them a dreaded liberal.
I wish candidates, both D and R would just stick to their policies and ideas and stop the dumb ass labels. These people are all just wasting trees and ink at this point.
Meanwhile, my family which includes 4 votes from this house will support Ann Wheeler. Peter Candland attacked our friend, Elena because of gossip. Elena took several hours of her time, when she could have been spending it with her family, to document the ARC information. She was still attacked. I was going to say what a DB. Actually I think Peter just associates with D-bags. He might actually just be young and politically naive. We know where it started and we know who fed it. Shame on both of you.
@Moon-howler
“I believe the problem comes from defining the word ‘serve.'” Ah, is this the crux of the whole thing? We all recall when Bill Clinton, answered a question about his alleged sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, “It depends on what the definition of is is.” It sounds like that is the issue here. What does “serve” mean? There are many definitions for this simple word–pick up any dictionary and you will find perhaps eight or more definitions. As I see it, he may well have technically served on the committee, the question might be, “How active was his service?” It is fair to say that John Stirrup “serves” on the BOCS; however, his level of service is not what his constituents may have wanted. It is a miniscule issue–more importantly what does Candland bring to the table that qualifies him to serve as a supervisor?
Interesting that Gainesville first assumes that we are just Ann supporters. I think it is safe to assume that most of us were Martha supporters before we were Ann supporters.