Beware All Ye That Enter Here
Residents of Prince William County were told to tune in at 3:00 pm during the BOCS meeting for the long awaited announcement of our new County Executive Officer. Chairman Stewart planned on interrupting the regularly scheduled meeting for this announcement.
No announcement was made. In fact, we are now being told the announcement will be made in 2 weeks at the next BOCS Meeting scheduled for February 2. The reason given was that Supervisor John Stirrup would not be in attendance.
And the real reason is? I thought Supervisor’s absence had been announced the week before. Furthermore, why does John Stirrup have to be present for the announcement of the new CEO? The postponement was just bad business. If the Chairman said an announcement was to be made, then it should have been made. Postponing the announcement just gives rise to rumor and it steals everyone’s thunder, especially the person being hired for the position.
Someone either dropped the ball or is trying to pull something slick. Considering some of the players, there is no telling. Why would such an announcement be made and then retracted?
The announcement being postponed due to the absense of a supervisor is a lame excuse. It makes no sense to delay such an announcement. Why the delay for this? Land use votes and other critical votes are made regularly without all supervisors being present. What’s going on down there?
I am requesting that this thread NOT be used for candidate vetting. Thanks!
Well, if is anything like sports, maybe the candidate pulled out of the deal or the contract was not satisfactory. Happens often.
Wolfie, I may have typed my email address wrong so I have a comment in moderation.
Thanks
Heading there now to fix it Rez
Rez, you might run into a problem if you go back and forth between those email addresses. Feel free to have a full account and a Rez account if you want.
Something seems strange here that they would not announce because a supervisor is gone but they knew that in the first place. go figure.
I would think they could get it right after this long. When did Gerhart leave? I think like June 30th. Jan. 20……yup, my counting is right.
@A PW County Resident
Good point. If anyone from outside of the county was considering the job and they’d read our local paper/comments there about PWC they would NOT want to come here and work.
I have to be honest with my thoughts on this even though it’s well known by anyone who knows me my point of view is with a VERY jaundiced eye. I fully agree with Lafayette that anyone from outside the County considering this job would, in my opinion, be put off by a Google or any other search and see what this County has been about in the last few years. Stewarts perception that “the eyes of the country are on PWC” is nothing but a sound bite for his fans, is ridiculously self-serving and naive. I expect a few here will vehemently disagree with me and talk about “The Resolution” and all the “wonderful things” it has accomplished. It has accomplished some good, I don’t deny that but the process was colossally mishandled (as is most everything from this Chairman) from the start and exceedingly more damaging then the intended results – which frankly were not given much consideration other than to “get it done before Elewction Day” as he so elequently stated at th time. The process resulted a Phyrric Victory at best. meaning one where the costs far outweigh the benefits. A candidate for CXO will see that. As such, I think it will be the internal candidate for not only that reason but for a multitude of other reasons that I won’t bore anyone with. Not making the announcement because Stirrup wasn’t there a joke and insult to citizens.
Maybe we could get some supervisors to comment – anonymously, of course. We have repealed the “transparent government” philosophy.
Juturna, what sound do chickens make? Do you hear a bok bok bok in the distance?
There simply is not reason for that situation to have been handled as it was, that I can think of.
Stop the world, Stirrup isn’t here. Neither are the freaking street lights for one of the communities in his district. The sun is still rising in the east and setting in the west.
How OLD is that street light issue?
It’s mighty dark in Sudley at night and has ALWAYS been. I’ve never understood the lack of street lighting over there. I’m glad we have them in WestGate. 🙂
Just more of our esteemed chairman’s stupid games and manipulations. The possible reasons are myriad, as a pretext for suspending the rules to move Avendale, ensuring that Peacor’s appointment is unanimous, ensuring that Stirrup can’t avoid a vote on Peacor, cold feet on making the appointment, etc., etc., etc. Sad truth is, particularly given the reason for the delay with prior knowledge that Stirrup wouldn’t be there, that none is acceptable after having made the announcement in the a.m. that the County Exec. would be named at 3:00.
@John S Gray
That is an excellent post, John. Thank you.
Juturna, at least 2 years old from what I am told.
Johnny Cash?
It’s dark as a dungeon and damp as the dew,
Where danger is double and pleasures are few,
Where the rain never falls and the sun never shines
It’s dark as a dungeon way down in the mine.
And obviously not on the mind of their supervisor over there.
Police statistics tell us the best crime prevention is daylight. Barring that, artificial light works well too.
Wolfie, actually I was out of town and it wasn’t my intention to mess things up and to have two different things going on. I just misstyped the original email address I have used from the start. For some reason when I signed up for the account, I had to use an alternate email address.
A question – do the Supervisors have to vote in public on the appointment of a new County Exec, or can they do it in private and just say that a majority favored it? I want to know because if Peacor gets the job I want to know which Supervisors supported her so I’ll know which to be working to defeat in 2011.
Need to Know, excellent question. I wish I knew the answer. We the citizens should be informed as to what supervisors voted for/against the next CXO. Afterall, the supervisors represent us, right?
Lafayette – absolutely. If it is a closed vote, any Supervisor who doesn’t reveal how they voted should be presumed to have voted for Peacor and be put on the “kick them out on their a%% list” for 2011.
By the way, the other blog that is not popular here has a thread on the new County Exec also. Interesting that on this issue and on Avendale there is a lot of agreement if, perhaps, for different reasons. I hope that the problems and animosities of the immigration debate are fading into the past and that we can all forgive and work together now. I have friends who post here and who post there. Regardless of whether someone prefers this or the other blog, we all have a common interest in sensible development of our County and in getting good, ethical government that works for the benefit of all of the community.
There are very few facts here on any of this stuff – innuendo regarding sexual harrassment, innuendo about a tape (?) that Mr. Leteicq “claims” to have and oh, let’s not forget the “anonymous” supervisor(s) phone calls??!!!! I’ve read his post/comments – not sure which of the “anon” posters he is – I can view him but have long been banned. I’ve seen enough in both cases to conclude there are some people that don’t like her clearly for personal reasons because nothing else can be proven – or backed with facts or produced or decided by a court.
Even the old Wally Jabs thing is back. What a hoot. I was involved in that one personnaly and will say, I have a much different take than the poster who is regurgitating that mess.
Guess that what a blog is — anonymous, filled with innuendo and no responsibility to produce what you claim to be fact.
But this is fun!!!!!!!!!
@Need to Know
I’m not sure if you know my history or not. I became very vocal during the immigration debate, but that was hardly the first time I’d “fought” for what *I* believe in. I have friends on both blogs too. I do read the other blog from time to time. I lost my posting rights quite sometime ago. The last time I posted there it didn’t go through. Oh, well that’s NO big deal at all. I don’t need a blog to voice my opinion. I’m quite comfortable in writing letters, making phones calls, and visiting our elected officials offices.
I don’t even know where to start with the animosity issue. When there are citizens that share a common interest or concern they should be working together, not against each other. I’m friendly with people on both sides of the immigration debate, and have participated in groups of people I knew thought I was one thing. However, after spending eight hours with me, they soon found out that their impression of me was wrong. I can assure we ALL have many common interests, but some are simply so close minded and unwilling to put one issue aside, move on, and work on the “new business” at hand. I think this is a shame. I’d be willing to work with anyone if we shared a common goal/interest of improving an aspect of our county. I’d do anything I could to make this possible. I doubt I’d get any takers with polar opposite views. imho
I believe personnel matters are closed to the public because of matters of privacy. If they aren’t, they should be.
Once it has been publicized that CXO will be announced, it should have been. If Mr. Stirrup wanted to be there, he would have been.
Personnel matter are closed and understand that. However, why wouldn’t we the citizens to know if all supervisors were in favor of the appointment or the majority?
I’m in total agreement as to the announcement. Sorry, one supervisor absent is NO reason to delay the announcement. Now, if there were going to be a vote in chambers for the new CXO that’s one thing, but that was not the case last Tuesday. The choice had been made.
I don’t know how personnel matters like that work. I don’t know where privacy stops and right to know picks up.
You might want to check and see if you can get the information on how the school board voted on Dr. Walts.
Executive privilege does not extend to voting. They can do all the debating and planning they want behind closed doors but ALL votes must be taken in open session.
Let’s say our new CXO is from outside of the county. I’m curious if they will bring their own batch of cronies with them, like Walts did?
I don’t think the two boards function the same. I wouldn’t waste my time on looking up a done deal like Walts.
@Mom
Thank you, Mom!! I missed your post as I was typing my previous one.
They might not function the same way but they are all bound by the same rules of privacy on personnel matters.
I don’t think this hire came to a vote. If they announce the hiree, when did they vote? Certainly they aren’t going to drag a person’s name out there and get into a bruhaha right out there in public.
After thinking about it more, I am going to disagree that all votes must happen out in the open. I believe all sorts of things have gone down in executive session involving personnel that were not voted on in public. Now how do they decide if they don’t vote, on whether to fire someone or to take other action? I feel confident they don’t just let the Chairman do it all.
§ 2.2-3710. Transaction of public business other than by votes at meetings prohibited.
A. Unless otherwise specifically provided by law, no vote of any kind of the membership, or any part thereof, of any public body shall be taken to authorize the transaction of any public business, other than a vote taken at a meeting conducted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. No public body shall vote by secret or written ballot, and unless expressly provided by this chapter, no public body shall vote by telephone or other electronic communication means.
B. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing contained herein shall be construed to prohibit (i) separately contacting the membership, or any part thereof, of any public body for the purpose of ascertaining a member’s position with respect to the transaction of public business, whether such contact is done in person, by telephone or by electronic communication, provided the contact is done on a basis that does not constitute a meeting as defined in this chapter or (ii) the House of Delegates or the Senate of Virginia from adopting rules relating to the casting of votes by members of standing committees. Nothing in this subsection shall operate to exclude any public record from the provisions of this chapter.
§ 2.2-3711. Closed meetings authorized for certain limited purposes.
A. Public bodies may hold closed meetings only for the following purposes:
1. Discussion, consideration, or interviews of prospective candidates for employment; assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining, or resignation of specific public officers, appointees, or employees of any public body; and evaluation of performance of departments or schools of public institutions of higher education where such evaluation will necessarily involve discussion of the performance of specific individuals. Any teacher shall be permitted to be present during a closed meeting in which there is a discussion or consideration of a disciplinary matter that involves the teacher and some student and the student involved in the matter is present, provided the teacher makes a written request to be present to the presiding officer of the appropriate board.
§ 2.2-3712. Closed meetings procedures; certification of proceedings.
A. No closed meeting shall be held unless the public body proposing to convene such meeting has taken an affirmative recorded vote in an open meeting approving a motion that (i) identifies the subject matter, (ii) states the purpose of the meeting and (iii) makes specific reference to the applicable exemption from open meeting requirements provided in § 2.2-3707 or subsection A of § 2.2-3711. The matters contained in such motion shall be set forth in detail in the minutes of the open meeting. A general reference to the provisions of this chapter, the authorized exemptions from open meeting requirements, or the subject matter of the closed meeting shall not be sufficient to satisfy the requirements for holding a closed meeting.
B. The notice provisions of this chapter shall not apply to closed meetings of any public body held solely for the purpose of interviewing candidates for the position of chief administrative officer. Prior to any such closed meeting for the purpose of interviewing candidates, the public body shall announce in an open meeting that such closed meeting shall be held at a disclosed or undisclosed location within fifteen days thereafter.
C. The public body holding a closed meeting shall restrict its discussion during the closed meeting only to those matters specifically exempted from the provisions of this chapter and identified in the motion required by subsection A.
D. At the conclusion of any closed meeting, the public body holding such meeting shall immediately reconvene in an open meeting and shall take a roll call or other recorded vote to be included in the minutes of that body, certifying that to the best of each member’s knowledge (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under this chapter and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion by which the closed meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered in the meeting by the public body. Any member of the public body who believes that there was a departure from the requirements of clauses (i) and (ii), shall so state prior to the vote, indicating the substance of the departure that, in his judgment, has taken place. The statement shall be recorded in the minutes of the public body.
E. Failure of the certification required by subsection D to receive the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the public body present during a meeting shall not affect the validity or confidentiality of such meeting with respect to matters considered therein in compliance with the provisions of this chapter. The recorded vote and any statement made in connection therewith, shall upon proper authentication, constitute evidence in any proceeding brought to enforce the provisions of this chapter.
F. A public body may permit nonmembers to attend a closed meeting if such persons are deemed necessary or if their presence will reasonably aid the public body in its consideration of a topic that is a subject of the meeting.
G. Except as specifically authorized by law, in no event may any public body take action on matters discussed in any closed meeting, except at an open meeting for which notice was given as required by § 2.2-3707.
H. Minutes may be taken during closed meetings of a public body, but shall not be required. Such minutes shall not be subject to mandatory public disclosure.
Moon, sorry I respectful disagree. I think we have every right to know where each supervisors stands with an appointment such as CXO. I’m not saying we need to know all the details of how they made their pick, but we do need to who the yay’s & nay’s are. I do agree with the Chairman doesn’t do it all.
Perhaps the announcement was delayed so that Stirrup could not come back later and say he was against the selection of Melissa Peacor, but out of town when the vote took place.
I’ve been sitting thinking about this for a while and would note that if the BOCS is the body that selects the County Exec. as a matter of course it would require a public vote. To my knowledge no public vote has been recorded so I would question whether or not a final selection has been made. If they have selected and signed the new County Exec. there I would suggest that they are in serious violation of the FOIA and other open government laws. If they merely intend to name who they believe the new County Exec. should be and vote accordingly then they are likely in compliance. It bears watching because if it is the latter and Peacor is the presumed selection, there is still time to act.
Lafayette, I am not saying how I think things should be. I am saying I think that is how they are.
The announcement was made that the new county executive was going to be announced. The announcement did not say debated or discussed.
Mom, will you go in and highlight where it discusses the voting on the county executive? I did not see it but I have an vision tracking problem with long volumes of text. I am going to try to lift stuff out but not sure I can.
How effective would a hiree be if he knew that 3 members had voted against him being hired? I see inherent problems in making such a vote know.
I feel like we are on a witch hunt now.
Privacy laws are privacy laws. It doesn’t matter if it is a school board, a city council or a couunty position. It saves everyone from getting sued.
§ 2.2-3710. Transaction of public business other than by votes at meetings prohibited.
A. Unless otherwise specifically provided by law, no vote of any kind of the membership, or any part thereof, of any public body shall be taken to authorize the transaction of any public business, other than a vote taken at a meeting conducted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. No public body shall vote by secret or written ballot, and unless expressly provided by this chapter, no public body shall vote by telephone or other electronic communication means.
Moon,
Moon-howler :After thinking about it more, I am going to disagree that all votes must happen out in the open.
This was the quote I was talking about that I commented on. I think that was your opinion. Sorry if I misread your opinion.
I just don’t see how all votes regarding personnel can go to the public. The supervisors could know each others votes. That doesn’t mean we will. I will be interested in seeing how it all works.
Look at all the little devils who get put out for expulsion. We never get to see a vote on that. I mean do we see Kid X accused of Y and how each school board member votes?
I just don’t know. I am extrapolating.
Thanks Mom. I am not really sure what that means other than no secret ballot…but can’t it stay secret within the room?
With regard to elected bodies like the BOCS, it doesn’t get any clearer than: “transaction of public business other than by votes at meetings prohibited” and “no vote of any kind of the membership…shall be taken to authorize the transaction of any public business, other than a vote taken at a meeting conducted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter”. As the body with ultimate power both over the purse strings and practices of the county, the state will accept no less. It is the fundamental underpinning of open government and one that no county attorney in their right mind would ever let the board do anything contrary to. It is one of the first “lessons” any elected official should be taught by their legal counsel, even before how to spell nay or yea.
Almost forgot, since we have a county executive form of governement:
§ 15.2-509. County executive appointed by board.
The board shall appoint a county executive and fix his compensation. He shall devote his full time to the work of the county. He shall be appointed with regard to merit only, and need not be a resident of the county at the time of his appointment. No board member shall, during the time for which he has been elected, be chosen county executive, nor shall such powers be given to a person who at the same time is filling an elective office. The head of one of the departments of county government may, however, also be appointed county executive.
That appointment requires a public vote and is not the type of personnel issue handled exclusively in closed session. Remember, all other personnel issues except appeals to the board are executed by an action of the county exec. and not the board.
Actually it is all mumbo jumbo. To the average person, that isn’t real clear. That is pure beaurocratese if I ever saw it.
So when was the new cxo voted on? I must have missed it. It must have happened when their droning put me to sleep. It nevr takes long.
It sounds like they will vote pubically and then make a formal announcement. Is that even close?
It looks like they can discuss the different applicants for the job in closed session as long as they announce it. They did announce that meeting in the newspaper and it was held at some private golf club a few weeks ago. They should have also been able to discuss the salary and benefits package in closed session. It would be easy to informally discuss in closed session which applicant would be offered the job. Even if they did not formally vote at that time, the board would have a clear idea of who they were leaning towards. That is the person who would be brought forward in the motion, then seconded, then voted on.
Then they likely planned to come out and take the ceremonial public vote last week to officially offer the person the job. Maybe the ceremonial vote was really cancelled until all board members could be there to show unity on the decision.
Pure speculation on my part but that process is similar to one the quasi-public organization I was involved with at a state level. Before we took that formal vote, everyone knew where the other 19 people stood on a particular applicant. We expressed our displeasure, if any, in private and then presented a united front to the public.
To my friends at anti, I want to make a request that you read my guest post on bvbl regarding the new County Executive. I sent this guest post to Greg for two reasons.
First, I have friends and respect people who post on both of the blogs. I want to avoid being identified uniquely as a supporter of either, and avoid the trap of feeling that one must take sides. Readers of and contributors to both blogs agree for the most part on several issues, including development and good government. I posted extensively on anti regarding Avendale and appreciate greatly the work Elena and others contributed to that effort.
Second, conversations I had over the weekend convinced me that Corey Stewart supports Melissa Peacor to be the next County Executive. As I write in my post on BVBL, I feel she would be a poor choice for the next County Executive. Corey’s readers are more likely to read and be persuaded by an article there than here.
Mr. Pugh,
Thanks for your post. I did go and read on bvbl, but I’m banned from posting on bvbl, like others from this site. I did see someone over there say anti didn’t seem to care and thought anti was in support of Ms. Peacor. I don’t why people have to make such assumptions. I think anti is not as quick to jump the gun on some issues, which the public does not know the outcome of yet. I think there are posters here that are interested, but I don’t expect to see anti come out against or in support of a predicted new CXO. This of course is just my opinion. I will respect the anti’s request to not vet candidates here.
Thank you Lafayette. You are right and summed it up well. We are not going to take a side regarding a private citizen on Antibvbl at this point. We do not feel it serves this blog to do so. Different people have different feelings about the issue and those whose names have been leaked to the public.
So, to all on the darkside who feel they know what we on ANTI-bvbl think, once again, you are full of it. Some things apparently are constant.
Mr. Pugh, thanks for your understanding. And you are right, probably those Corey supporters you want to reach would not be as prone to agree with you here. We also are not going to participate in the vetting of any one person. At this point, we are simply trying to understand the process and what happened. (very generally speaking)
And for the record, when someone put a comment up about a particular person being selected, I politely said something positive. It was in no way an endorsement of how the process should work or who should be chosen. The words were meant to be courteous, as one would say in any social situtation.
Thanks, Moon, for your understanding. This is an issue about which I have a strong opinion, just like Avendale, but I respect what you do and do not want discussed here. I hope to remain a welcome poster on both blogs!
In response to Mr. Pugh’s comments on THE OTHER –
Of all the things that could be said about Ms. Peacor you chose the one that mitigates your concerns and perhaps gets to the heart of your animosity toward Ms. Peacor
“….and do not believe she has the intellectual acumen to handle the County Executive job.”
Just about everyone, even those that do not like her, would agree she is one of the most brillant people in county government.
She has never felt the need to state her entire C.V. prior to addressing the BOCS on a work related matter.
As Mr. Pugh states, he is a FORMER employee.
By the way, it’s not clear to me that if attorney’s and the Board have been involved with this alleged harrassment case why the complaintant has not prevailed? Why the tapes are even in those folks posssession is concerning to me. Why Mr. Stewart has not directed his Internal Audit folks to check.
Unless the purpose of the delay was, once again, a way for Mr. Stewart to have GL do his dirty work for him. Do we all have to endure this kind of government once again??? Corey, say it isn’t so……..
Juturna – grievance hearings are recorded and both the County and the complainant are entitled to copies. That is one aspect of the process that I respect.
We’ll agree to disagree on the other matters and not discuss them here.