I have been checking out the blogs and picking up information. I thought today we could just kick around a few ideas.
According to the Sheriff, Supervisor Pete Candland has submitted a second letter to the county attorney asking for clarification. Meanwhile, Chairman Stewart has stated that County Attorney Horan is under no obligation to answer Supervisor Candland. Why have a county attorney if not as a resource for all supervisors?
Let’s put a few things in perspective. Ms. Horan is an employee of the BOCS. She is hired to legally advise the county. I would surmise that her first obligation is to advise the Board on legal matters. First off, I suppose, as an employee, she has to do what she is told. If following directives comes into conflict with her sense of legal ethics, then she can resign. I think this is a long way around saying they are her boss. She is not their boss. County Executive Peacor, same deal. She is the BOCS’s employee. She, in turn, is the ultimate boss of all county employees who are not school board employees. The school board employees answer to Dr. Walts, the superintendent. His bosses are the School Board. He serves at their pleasure.
One of the questions I read whilst flitting around from local blog to local blog was the matter of supervisors being exempt from their own policies. That actually is not all that uncommon. They aren’t employees. They are elected officials. They have to follow the rules and laws set forth for elected officials. Can they follow the employee rules? Sure. For instance, if there is no drinking on county property (or smoking or what have you) then the supervisors shouldn’t do what the employees can’t do. That’s just good business. Can and should are 2 different things.
Kids sometimes have a hard time understanding why their teachers can “break the rules.” The rules aren’t for the teachers. The kids have to follow school rules and the teachers have to follow employee rules. That’s why 7th grade teachers can drive to school and 7th graders can’t.
Something else important to remember is that the supervisors are only part time employees. They make less money than their office staffers. The “jilted” staffer (Not Reece Collins. He wasn’t in the system,) who was fired made over $60k per year as opposed to the $43K+ made by Candland for being a supervisor. Stewart makes about $6000 more for being Chairman, for a part time salary of just under $50K. The staffer mentioned who works in the Jenkins office makes just a hair under $70k. Those are nice salaries with benefits and a short commute for the office staff. The assistants make about $10k less.
Speaking of the office staff, most of those permanent jobs are salaried positions. Those employed to fill them do not receive hourly compensation. That is why they are entitled to comp time. If you are salaried and work overtime, tough. If you have a nice boss, he or she will probably let you come in late the next day if you have a late meeting at night. I am not sure what all that was about with Pete Candland. I am not sure from the amendments what was disallowed or allowed. It sounded to me like Mr. Jenkins was saying don’t allow comp time but then do allow comp time if employees work overtime. It was a very confusing amendment.
It seems to me that if you work for a supervisor and attend night meetings, then you take off the morning or afternoon some other time, with the permission of your boss. Even salaried employees usually have some structured work week and some idea of the amount of time that you are expected to put in.
Meanwhile, for an interesting read, go check out the Sheriff.
http://sheriffofnottinghampwc.blogspot.com/
He is not going to stop until he gets some answers.
It is important that the BOCS understand a few basics right now. There is a small contingency of people who are not going to take their eye off the ball. County money is no longer going to be floating around to favorite charities at the expense of others.
Those same people are not going to allow what happened June 5 to go down without a fight. People like the Sheriff are going to start looking under every rock. I think that the BOCS had better start thinking of the local blogosphere as their own personal Jiminy Cricket conscience. ” All politics is local” and there is no more business as usual.
We are watching-listening-observing. Those who have to deal with county are talking and some of them are telling tales out of school.
“Let’s put a few things in perspective. Ms. Horan is an employee of the BOCS. She is hired to legally advise the county. I would surmise that her first obligation is to advise the Board on legal matters. First off, I suppose, as an employee, she has to do what she is told. If following directives comes into conflict with her sense of legal ethics, then she can resign. I think this is a long way around saying they are her boss.”
What about her obligation to the laws of the Commonwealth? Does she not have an obligation to advise the BOCS, and the other boards and agencies she provides legal advice to, when they are in violation of the laws of the Commonwealth? THAT is her duty, it is not her duty to knuckle under to the likes of Corey Stewart or other bullies on the BOCS. It is not her duty to, “do what she is told”. Yes, she can resign but first she must uphold the law. To do less is to put her on the same level as those who may be insisting that she ignore the law.
As to not understanding what the Jenkins amendments are all about, well you ain’t alone. Pete Candland was absolutely correct when he said he thought they should be reviewed before they were implemented but that was not to be. While it has not be proven at this point, the whole thing smells of collusion. Yes, BOCS members can meet with one other member without it being an “official” open to the public meeting and this could well have been the case here. Perhaps no more than two ever discussed the Jenkins amendments at the same time but ultimately they all, less Candland, discussed them with a view toward including them in Stewart’s “rocket docket” thus precluding review and public comment. I repeat for the umpteenth time–it is time for a special prosecutor and that seems to be the direction Mr. Candland is heading toward. I’m with him!
The stench emanating from 1 County Complex is definitely growing stronger.
And, All Hail the Sheriff. That guy is on fire.
@George
Don’t shoot the messenger. No one is saying she has to dodge the laws of Virginia.
All I am saying is, she was hired by the board of supervisors and she is their employee. That is the reality of the situation. If you are someone’s employee, you do what they tell you to do or resign (or have them ‘resign’ you).
I really wish Corey hadn’t said “rocket docket.” Ewwwww. He shot himself in the foot with that one. Actually, I think he pretty much described how he handles things–carelessly and without regard for much of anything other than satisfaying his own sense of urgency. Accuracy, ethics, competency be damned. Fire away!
One more thing, I have no idea who said what to whom. I also can’t see the second letter to read it. I have no insider information. I don’t want insider information. Someone would have to kill me. I don’t know the story behind each of those amendments. I do know that there is a story behind it though. They didn’t just fall out of the sky, randomly.
I do know who might have an axe to grind and who know longer works for the county. I am assuming that same “who” is the person the blogs are referencing. I know that person can be vicious and tell things that aren’t true. Beyond that….I have no inside story.
I feel certain that the Sheriff will be mindful of who to trust with information. We all know its difficult to resist the urge to sensationalize some of these things, especially when some are fanning the flames.
———————————————————————————————————
to be continued after reading the letter.
@Moon-howler
I’m not trying to shoot the messenger Moon. What I am saying that as an officer of the court, her first loyalty is to the law. She has an absolute obligation to tell the BOCS what the law says. Then they can fire her and disregard want the law says but they do do at their risk, not hers. She has fulfilled her obligation to the law. Stop and think for a moment– your idea that she must do what her bosses say or resign was once heard at the Nurenburg trials. I know,
I know, an unfair comparison but that kind of thinking is a limp excuse for not following the rule of law. MOE, WHERE ARE YOU? PLEASE WADE IN ON THIS!
P.S.– The second Candland letter has been available on the Sheriff’s blog since early this morning. I don’t know who said what to whom but the most obvious conclusion seems to be, repeat, SEEMS to point to collusion– by intent or by default. From what Stewart and Jenkins have said, their intent was to teach Freshman about the “wink-wink, nod-nod” way the BOCS has done business for decades. In college, it might be called hazing.
OK George. She doesn’t work for the BOCS. The Law sent her. The law pays her.
There is nothing to weigh in on. Just kidding. I don’t see what the protest is over. I am telling you who pays her salary. That’s all. Because she is a lawyer doesn’t make her immune to having a boss and serving at his (or the collective his) pleasure. For all I know, she has given her opinion. She doesn’t work for us and she doesn’t have to let us know her response to any of this.
I am not talking about what people SHOULD do. My response isn’t about right or wrong. Its about the reality of the situation.
The Mafia even has lawyers. The Mafia doesn’t like what their lawyers do, they fire them or kill them.
She is not,”just a lawyer”, please read what her responsibilities are. She is an officer of the court–if you hVe a problem with that, please say so. She is not a slave to the BOCS as it seems you seem to wish to portray her. She has responsibilities to the law as an officer of the court. I find it difficult that you, “…don’t see what the protest is over”. Are you kidding me or your readers? In your attempt to be all things to all people, you seem to have strayed off to some unknown place where nothing has any color including black or white. Finally, because she is a county employee, she does, in fact, work for all of us. I am dismayed at your failure to take a stand here. It smacks of equivocation. Are you waiting to see who wins?
Oh and now you will accuse me of attacking you. Well, you’re half right– I’m not attacking you, I’m attacking your equivocation. You have been so passionate on so many issues, including Candland’s campaign, that your equivocation here is beyond belief. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that you wanted bits and pieces of the discretionary funding to continue and you don’t REALLY support what Candland has done. Oh my, the burdens we must bear.
George, I don’t see what YOUR protest is over. She is an effen employee who happens to be a lawyer. You are trying to turn her into God.
I did not accuse you of attacking me. “Don’t shoot the messenger” is an idiomatic expression.
I am taking a stand. She is an employee. That is my only point.
I don’t take stands on other people’s gossip.
I take stands on what I know to be true. I have taken a stand on this issue. Where have you been?
I just wouldn’t count on Ms. Horan to solve the problem. Psssst…go read what I wrote on The Sheriff’s blog.
Oh and George, SCREW YOU. Your failure to understand elected office vs employment is not a sign of me equivocating.
If you want to carry on a realistic conversation about what we are dealing with in this county you need to start with the basics. Angela Horan works for the BOCS, not you or me. To falsely assume any differently puts your original premise at fault before it is even out of the gate.
Her job description/purpose is defined by the board of supervisors, since she is their employee.
Let’s put it another way…Corey can call her up and tell her not to respond to Candland. In fact, good chance he already has. She can choose to do what he says or not. If she chooses to do what he says, what are you going to do about it? If she doesn’t do what he says, well, she is taking a chance of being found insubordinate. Do you seriously think the other 6 will come to her defense? I wouldn’t bet the ranch on that one. I saw how they rallied around Pete. I saw how they rallied around a few other issues in this county, even after Corey had kicked them in the teeth. They didn’t. They went along to get along.
@Moon-howler
I read what you wrote there–why not write it on your blog? I’m not trying to make a god of Horan, what I,am saying is you apparently do not understand her responsibilities as an officer of the court. You make it seem like sheds a slave to the vagaries of the BOCS–I adamantly disagree. As I see it, you have taken a stand on nothing–you have chose to equivocate. A sad statenofbaffairsvforvsomeone I,thought was so.passionate. A poor testimony to my judgement. C’est la vie, c’est ls guerre!
In my experience, dealing with PWC, land use issues, questions of ethics and impropriety, I learned the frustrating fact that the county attorney is NOT there to serve the people of PWC, they are there to serve the Board. It is not their role to investigate impropriety, it is the role of the commonwealth attorney, period.
http://www.pwcgov.org/government/courts/countyattorney/Pages/Frequently-Asked-Questions.aspx
http://www.pwcgov.org/government/courts/countyattorney/Pages/TheCountyAttorney.aspx
I think your accusations towards Moon suggesting she is being disengenous are completely unfair and not productive towards focusing on solving the deep rooted sickness that has enveloped this board for far too many decades. What does having reservations regarding the complete dissolution of discretionary funding have to do with still having grave concerns about the process?
Have we come to a place where we must all agree 100% or be seen as the “enemy”? I believe that the only way to create real change was to dissolve the current process and be forced to start anew from ground zero, but that is me, I beleive very strongly that there needs to be process in place to allocate funds to non profits, but the current system wasn’t working. I am not sure why you find the need to be so aggressive when you debate with people, especially when they are your friends George.
You stated:
Your tone is insulting when you imply “your equivocation here is beyond belief.” Why was that necessary? It isn’t Moon’s fault that the county attorney works for the Board. It’s all in how you present your point that allows for productive discourse.
@George S. Harris
I run into that situation a lot with my profession. I am ethically obligated to provide the best information I can to my employer regarding both government policy and what I know about how the personnel follow (or don’t) that policy.
The interesting moments are when my employer says they may not be able to ‘meet’ those requirements.
My ethical obligation is to inform them that they must comply. After that I then – as an employee of the company and not of the government – provide them information to help them be as compliant as possible or to at least minimize the (information assurance) risk.
I’m not the decision maker. I’m just a tool. But I am a tool that has an ethical obligation to do the job that I was hired to do.
I think that’s what you’re driving at.
Elena is correct in that she is hired to provide legal advice to the board. They don’t have to take her advice although you would think they would thoughtfully consider it. The entire reason she is physically present at those meetings is to provide counsel on topics are discussed in the event the board might do something unwise or illegal. The position is hired directly by the board as well instead of Melissa Peacor like other senior staff members.
A good county attorney should have clarified to the supervisors that there may be unintended consequences from the fast track rocket docket amendments and said aloud what those possible unintended consequences might be.
Ms. Horan is not required however to provide individual advice to board members because she works for the board as an whole entity. If a supervisor called Horan and asked her a legal question she would probably give guidance as long as it didn’t involve taking a position against the board. But in a situation where the supervisor is asking whether the BOCS is correct or incorrect, she is in a conflict of interest situation because she works for the group not the individuals.
The next step Candland could pursue would be the Commonwealth Attorney, Mr. Ebert who is part of that old boys network so I’m not sure how far that would get. Or Mr. Candland could approach the state attorney general and ask for how the state code might apply to this situation.
And what about Stewart, May and Covingten. They are all attorneys themselves so why didn’t they question what they were voting yes to?
What a little mess Mr. Covingten created with his proposed $100K donation!
I am not a lawyer but I do not think Ms. Horan serves as “an officer of the court.” I am assuming she is a member of the Virginia bar.
One more time, she is the county attorney. Prince William County pays her and she serves the BOCS not the taxpayers. She is not an outside agent.
Now, I am not anyone’s whipping girl and the personal attack on me for stating a fact without any connotation, positive or negative, is out of line and basically unacceptable. In other words, I am not going to tolerate it directed at me or anyone else on this blog. Let’s call it what it is: bullying.
That kind of aggression is simply unacceptable and has no place here. It is not unreasonable to expect people to exercise proper decorum.
Mouse–thanks for that bit of clarity. You succinctly stated what I was unable to spit out. The group vs the individual explanation alluded me.
I am appreciative of your for naming the amendments…here, now and forever, the rocket docket amendments.
I wonder if Corey plans to have rocket docket printed up on bumper stickers for his campaign? Talk about stumbling out of the gate.
@Elena
“I believe that the only way to create real change was to dissolve the current process and be forced to start anew from ground zero, but that is me, I beleive very strongly that there needs to be process in place to allocate funds to non profits, but the current system wasn’t working.”
I agree 100%.
Although I don’t post often, I think most who have read my posts know that I don’t get into the emotional volleys that are usually on blogs, preferring to stick to the real issues and I think Elena is right on with her comments about the discretionary funds. I choose not to address the other apparent disagreements between Ms. Moon and Capt. Harris, as that is their disagreement to resolve.
There should be some better structure to the discretionary system. One way to start is to have all excess funds returned to a central account and the competition for the funds begin. If the awards are made at the same time, all of the requests can be judged for their merits.
Of course the flip side is the old “use it or lose it” mentality that is often in place in government agencies and there may eventually be no excess funds. Any reference to the source of the funds should be “PW County” and not an individual supervisor.
As far as an attorney’s duty, I wouldn’t be shocked if Ms. Horan were not taken by surprise as well. Also, if laws were so clearly written and to apply to all nuances of a situation, we would have little need for courts to determine intent. So an attorney gives the best advice through their own prism and based on precedent but even that does not always clarify things.
And not many (if any) attorneys know all the precedences that have been established but they know how to research it. This further begs the question as to the immediacy of the vote. A short delay would have enabled Ms. Horan to perform better her county attorney duties.
Sorry for the length of the post. Going back to “reading mode” now.
@Clinton, that wasn’t even particularly long winded.
Capt. Harris and I aren’t really having a disagreement. He is reading something into what I said that simply was not there. I agree with you. Ms. Horan very well could have been blind-sided by the entire thing on June 5. If you travel around the blogs, I discovered that too many people see her in more of an overlord position than she really is. She is basically an employee hired for her area of expertise and skill to advise the board as a body.
I don’t think she is going to come charging forward on a white steed to save the taxpayers. She deosn’t work for us. She works for the BOCS.
I also agree with you about attorneys not knowing all the precedences that have bee establsihed. Most of their work is research based. Time will tell. I think we are all concerned to outraged over the immediacy of the vote. What were they thinking?
There was just so much that was wrong that day.
Never apologize for posting. Glad you stopped by.
While I do not win to beat a dead horse, please take a look here:
How does the County Attorney’s Office differ from the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office? The County Attorney’s Office provides counsel and advice in all civil matters to the Board of County Supervisors and all boards, commissions, departments, agencies, offices and officials of the general County government; drafts and prepares County ordinances and legislative proposals; defends and brings actions in which the County or any of its boards, commissions, etc., shall be a party; and in other matters, advises and represents the general County government. For more information about the County Attorney’s Office, click on the following link: County Attorney’s Office.
Ms. Horan’s duties are fairly broad and while her primary duty and most public face is her role with the BOCS, note she, “defends and brings actions in which the County or any of it’s boards, commissions, etc., shall be a party”– clearly making her an officer of the court. But, in general, attorneys are officers of the court. She does NOT, however, work exclusively for the BOCS. As can be seen, she has many other obligations, which IMHO, says she works for all of us.
Yes, attorneys don’ know every jot and tittle of the law but one would expect she would/should have known about the Commonwealth rule regarding the employment of former campaign workers. Short of that, I believe she had an absolute obligation to advise caution on adopting the Jenkins, which she did not do. She is not and should not knuckle under to the whims of the BOCS. The BOCS does not pay her salary, the county does–she has a duty to make sure the county, in all of its offices, does not screw up. In this case, she failed miserably and we are once again the laughing stock of the area–country boobs who can’t interpret the law.
Ms. Horan’s duties encompass much more than just the BOCS, which is her most visible “face” and her primary duty (perhaps–my annotation) but among other duties she, “defends and brings actions in which…”, while, as I have already stated, this duty makes her an “officer of the court”.
George, I have a great idea. Why don’t you write her a long letter and explain in great detail why she is such a f*** up. Tell her instead of me. My sin is saying she is an employ of the bocs. You don’t want to hear anyone’s voice but your own. You are all outgoing and your interest is on what you are going to say next rather than what the other person has to say.
Reread what Anonymouse said. She is 100% right on.
Don’t address anything else about this to me. I know who Angela Horan works for.
Anonymouse gave a great clarifaction of Ms. Horan’s role for the BOCS. I would have expected more of an opinion from her at the Board meeting, but that certainly doesn’t mean she is out of bounds regarding her duties to the Board.
@Clinton Long
I just want a fair playing field as opposed to the system we had in PWC. Glad we found common ground on this issue 🙂
@marinm
You ar e correct. How is that we agree on something?
@Moon-howler
I have read and reread what Anonymouse has written. I would hope he/she (hard to tell the sex of a pseudonym) would provide references for the declarative statements.
“You don’t want to hear anyone’s voice but your own. You are all outgoing and your interest is on what you are going to say next rather than what the other person has to say.”
I realize this is your blog, but surely your comment is a case of the river calling the ocean water.
I have written to Horan and Peacor personally seeking answers but have received nothing in return. Have you done as much?
Oh, and BTW, a list of duties: This Office represents, first and foremost, the Board of County Supervisors and County agencies. For example, it represents the Park Authority, Potomac Rappahannock Transportation District Commission, Police, Fire & Rescue, Department of Social Services, Prince William Self-Insurance Group, Planning Commission, and other County entities with its primary representation of the Board.
I have never said she didn’t have a responsibility to the BOCS, what I have said is that she has a responsibility to the law. As I noted above, she had a duty to advise the BOCS that there could be unintended consequences from the Jenkins proposed amendments–she did not do this. She took the route you have suggested and kowtowed to the BOCS.