UPDATE: Please Read below the fold.
Then visit the Sheriff’s blog via our link on the sidebar under the blogroll.
Horan’s response (click)
That Sheriff of Nottingham is certainly prolific. He has another post up. Apparently the letter has been drafted and has been sent to Mr. Candland, addressing at least one of his questions that relates to Reece Collins, the fired staffer. First off, Ms Horan explains the roll of her position. I thought in light of past “corrections” of my explanation, I will lift hers from the Sheriff and post it here:
“The overarching duty of my office is to protect the legal position of the County. That includes the duty to defend adopted resolutions of the Board, where there is a legal defense to be made in the judgment of a competent attorney. My primary client is the Board, or in a case different to this one, where the Board is no unanimous, the majority of the Board, on any particular issue. Individual Board members are not the client. So, there are intricacies to providing legal advice to an individual Board member when that member seeks guidance on the implementation of Board action with which he or she appears not to agree. As I advised you in our phone conversation I believe your first letter fits into this category.”
I interpret that as a SCREW YOU citizens from the Board of Supervisors, delivered by their attorney.
I actually thought some of the other verbage posted by the Sheriff was a joke. Now I am not sure.
Regarding Collins, the following opinion was offered:
“It is legitimate for a local government to wish to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest or impropriety on the part of its employees. For example, as an aide to a Board member, a hypothetical employee of a paid campaign consulting firm would have access to County information which is protected against public disclosure under the law because those protections serve the public interest. Such information could be very valuable to such a private company employing the Board aide. The Board would be justified in trying to avoid even the inadvertent release of that information. Further, other conflicts could arise because people dealing with a campaign firm’s employee on a political issue might feel compelled to react differently to that person based on the person’s position as a direct employee of a member of the Board.”
Really! Why would a staffer have secret information? This is such horse puckey. It goes beyond legalese. Is that what Corey cooked up? I have never heard such a bunch of baloney in my entire life. They are worried about a staffer who also works for a campaign vender being a a conflict of interest?
Allow me to tell you MY definition of conflict of interest. I think that sliding $100,000 of discretionary funds to one’s wife’s favorite non -profit is a conflict of interest. I think even considering $200,000 for that same non-profit through the budget process is conflict of interest.
Another question that is raised is about the woman who doles out the arts money for the county. She is listed as the director of operations for the unfinished war time museum. In one role she is part of the output process and paid by the county. In her other role, she is part of the input process since the War Museum (aka dead tank farm) is soliciting money from the county and lots of it (try $1,000,000). I am sorry. You shouldn’t be part of both input and the output. This lady might be the most honest person in the world and she probably is. However, it looks bad and she should not be in both roles.
Our readers can probably think of lots of other situations where there is possible conflict of interest. Mr. Candland’s staffer is just not it. Give it up, Core-man. Give it up. You are wrong. You are being stubborn. A big clue to you might be to look around at those speaking out against you. Let’s put it another way…who is supporting your actions? Who is supporting Mr. Jenkins’ actions? No one on any blog that I have read. We all think you are wrong. Listen to the Sheriff. Listen to Al. Listen to Greg. Listen the Moonhowlings. ALL of us are telling you the same thing. That just isn’t going to happen unless you are dead freaking wrong.
The Sheriff is calling for the following letter to be sent to all BOCS members. Apparently Ms. Horan has been ordered to keep her mouth shut. You may get the addresses in the BOCS top tab.
Board of County Supervisors:
As a citizen of Prince William County, I respectfully request that you request a formal vote during the Tuesday, June 19, 2012 meeting of the Board of County Supervisors to direct the County Attorney to answer all questions posed by Supervisor Candland about the impacts of the Jenkins amendments in the two letters dated June 7 and June 8, 2012.
When the response is completed, the document should be posted on the PWC website for the public to review. Please show you support complete transparency in government.
Sincerely,
Your Name
_________________________
Do this, and the BOCS will be forced to respond. The Sheriff knows it to be true.
Moon, the “secret” information they are concerned about certainly relates to the behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing Corey, Jenkins and others have with developers and other special interests. Remember Avendale? All supervisors are supposed to have equal access to information. Remember how Corey pulled Avendale out at the last minute and railroaded it through at the height of summer vacation season with citizens and taxpayers having little or no opportunity to organize or oppose it? Now imagine a supervisor who is not willing to play along to get along, who has aids who are able to interpret and understand the implications of the information and the deals, having access to that information, and exposing the schemes before they can come to fruition. That would be a nightmare for the developers who funded most of the current supervisors’ campaigns. Their investments in elected officials would go right down the drain.
That seems like a long stretch to me.
I don’t see why a staffer would have access to that kind of information and if they did, so what?
I am going to be more draconian and say that there isn’t really any reason at all other than sheer nastiness. Any one can call up someone and tell them whatever they want if there is that intent.
The same sleazy crap is going on at UVA right now with their B of V. They too are screaming SCREW YOU to the public, the faculty and probably the governor since they didn’t let him in on their plans to fire the first woman president at UVA who most people like and respect.
Power corrupts and its time to end the arrogance.
I read the Sheriff’s blog, and Horan’s response made me wonder what the heck she was babbling on about….”access to County information which is protected against public disclosure under the law because those protections serve the public interest”.
The Virginia Freedom of Information Act spells out what can be released, what can’t, and what is at the discreation of the record holder. HIPAA is also clear on what information too -with an additional caveat not found in the FOIA: the person who let the information out is not a “personnel matter” but can have the name released in public.
I am stumped as to what information unless this is a tap-dance to say the stuff that goes on in “conferences” between two or more supervisors, or what is discussed in closed session is discussed between a supervisor and his/her staff (which probably does occur). And if that information is released, well FOIA or HIPAA rules and penalities apply.
I am with you on this one – let’s just but some legalize together and slap people in the face with it.
Ray, you can always sort out what to the rest of us is the “unsortable.” I see you are just as stumped as the rest of us on this illegal political move.
Angela got reminded who she worked for. She did as she was told. I might also for $188k a year. Ms. Peacor makes $213K+ a year. Yet we act surprised that they don’t tell Corey to stick it. Hello…that is some nice chump change there. We aren’t talking about a teacher or cop’s salary.
Why are people surprised to learn that people making in the neighborhood of $200k (either side) want to keep their jobs????? Note!! That last part was not at Ray and just in general.
@Ray Beverage
Ray, how do you feel about a special prosecutor being brought in to unravel this Gordian knot? Can/should it be done and if do, who would be responsible for requesting such a person? Can Stewart legally withhold information from the public on issues that are already public? Can he legally withhold information regarding the resolution of issues that are contrary to Commonwealth law? Can we as citizens use FOIA to get access to Horan’s decision in its entirety?
This part is pure bullsh…, err bunk, unless of course the Supervisor is letting staff review things even they are not entitled to review.
“It is legitimate for a local government to wish to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest or impropriety on the part of its employees. For example, as an aide to a Board member, a hypothetical employee of a paid campaign consulting firm would have access to County information which is protected against public disclosure under the law because those protections serve the public interest.”
Unfortunately getting access to Horan’s decision in its entirety is likely covered by the Attorney-Client privilege and the material is not likely to be disclosed, unless a Supervisor leaks a copy.
The word bullshit is allowed on this blog. “Illegals” isn’t but “bullshit” is. I even know how to say bullshit in sign language. I will sign for drinks. How can there be a blog without bullshit?
@George S. Harris
George, the smart money would be on having a special prosecutor look into all of this – to include any session where he/she sits at the table grilling the individuals involved. Keep it all out in the open, clear the air, and if found there are people being irresponsible then say that in public.
As for witholding, VA FOIA does restrict “written advice of legal counsel to state, regional or local public bodies or the officers or employees of such public bodies, and any other records protected by attorney-client privilege”. Now there is a CAVEAT: the FOIA does say “may be disclosed by the custodian in his discreation, except where prohibited by law”.
In the case of Stewart witholding information that is in public, well, sorry Corey, can’t happen since the whole matter is on videotape to start with. Already out there. No way to hide under FOIA now.
As for Horan’s decision, smart money says keep releasing this stuff…although it is funny on one hand says cannot advise an individual supervisor, and on the other tries to claim attorney-client priviledge. Won’t work under FOIA either since the information is already in the public – regardless if released “officially” or via some “deputy or birdie”.
The old saw of “don’t air dirty laundry in public” ain’t working on this one – it is all public.
I sent the Sheriff’s proposed letter and got the whole Horan reply to Candland back from Corey Stewart. Since I got it, Impresume others have also.
I sent the Sheriff’s proposed letter and got the whole Horan reply to Candland back from Corey Stewart. Since I got it, I presume others have also. But if not, can post.
I apologize for the duplicate!
I have gotten nothing back.
What blather and bullshit did he send out?
I don’t know what to say other than I’m glad my family got out of Prince William. Corey is showing himself to be Richard Nixon, Jr. and Ms. Horan is his John Mitchell. If I we were you guys and Peter Candland I’d be scared to death about who is Haldeman, G. Gorden Liddy, etc. might be. Remember what Nixon did to the Republican Party? Corey is making exactly the same mistakes. The initial Watergate break-in was not what got Nixon. It was the coverup and lying afterwards, just like Corey is doing now. Corey at one time was a bright, rising star in the Virginia Republican Party. Now he’s just a po-dunk Richard Nixon.
@Moon-howler
Will e-mail to you to use as you see fit.
Thank you. When I have time I will put it as a pull down but I have to upload it to our host server. arrrghhh.
I have the perfect picture to go with it though.
Interesting reading and thanks to George for passing and thanks for posting!
In the Dillion Rule, Judge Dillion discusses a thing called the “Writ of Mandamus” which is a directive to perform duty as commanded. Also known as the “King’s Writ” – and in colloquial terms…”as it is written, so it shall be done”. This thing reads like a King’s Writ.
Judge Dillion expounded on how when a resolution is passed, the Government should avoid the historical Monarchy approach and pass a resolution based on the “will of the people”. One could say eliminating the discreationary funds met that test; the Jenkins amendment failed it and truly is a King’s Writ.
I still would like to know what the heck information is so dang classified that if a staffer working for a politcal consulting firm it would harm local government. Having held up to a Top Secret clearance in the Army, I cannot begin to fathom what it is.
Interesting.
Since “Individual board members are not the client”, does that mean that the discussions between certain board members and the attorney are NOT protected from disclosure under FOIA as attorney-client privilege?
Sounds like someone could have a fun time if so inclined.
Very interesting point Clinton, very interesting indeed. We need to hang onto the that letter to Pete for future reference.
First of all, if the concern is that information can be leaked, who is to say someone NOT employed by a specific political organization STILL would not have an “association” with that organziation and do it anyway. If there are legal restrictions to private information than LEGALLY any person is prohibited from leaking it. What am I missing?
Let’s just say, for arguments sake, I supported Bolling for LG and I worked in Marty Nohe’s office. Am I only a risk for getting info to the Bollng campaign if I officially “work” for a political entity?
I thought the purpose was to prevent taxpayer dollars from being funneled for electoral purposes. Now this Jenkins amendment is even MORE of a tangent completely disassociated from the Discretionary Funds Resolution. Doesn’t that make this even more of a legal issue now?
As you originally said, since Pete is not running for election, that argument isn’t going to fly. However, someone else IS running for election. Do you think your tax dollars will help support that? I would like an audit to determine that not so much as one paper clip from PWC goes towards that campaign. That is where Jenkins should have directed his concerns and amendments.
I wonder what kind of deal he and Corey cut?
I can imagine there might be certain contract negotiations that might be “classified” pending a contract award and there might be certain county “processes” that are classified since revealing them might permit “hacking” etc. From my own personal experience at a very high level security clearance (can’t tell you any more), much classified “stuff” is about processes, etc. Making them public would let the wrong parties know how we do business.
But as R ay has pointed out regarding all this mess–it is all public–nothing is sacred here. Corey is simply trying to hide is back room wheeling and dealing with Horan and members of the BOCS.