A thirteen page letter has been provided to the Washington Post, from Pete Candland to County Attorney Horan basically outlining a list of grievances about the way business was conducted June 5, 2012.
You have to read it in its entirety.
His letter demonstrates the terrible governance and the outright hypocrisy of some of our supervisors.
I remain outraged over the fact that the citizens of Prince William County were not given a chance to review, discuss or provide input over the very laws and ordinances of our own county. It is infuriating that our supervisors would vote on any amendments to someone’s resolution that they hadn’t talked about as a group or checked for unintended consequences.
Supervisor Jenkins sees nothing wrong with how things were done:
Jenkins said his amendments were perfectly within Robert’s Rules of Order and that “I don’t believe Mr. Candland has the experience in handling these procedures.” He said there was plenty of time to review and digest them, though Candland had never seen them. “It was a public forum,” Jenkins said, “there were open discussions, people were given the opportunity to speak on this at ‘Citizens Time.’ I don’t know what more we can do.”
You have to be kidding me. That is an outright lie. Unless we are all clairvoyant, no one was given a chance to speak to the Jenkins amendments at Citizens’ Time. No one knew about them. Passing legislation that no one has seen before, no one has vetted, no one has reviewed and not allowing the public to provide input is just dead wrong and poor governance by anyone’s standards. Mr. Jenkins, you have lost all credibility. Chairman Stewart acted inappropriately and with malice by allowing those amendments to attach.
Corey, remember that puppet we accused you of having? That was a Trojan puppet. We actually sent you Chucky. Deal with it.
Sorry Supervisor Candland, we don’t really think you are Chucky. You turned over a rock and it looks like there were all sorts of critters under that rock. Vindictive critters.
I didn’t vote for Supervisor Candland; I was perhaps one of his fiercest critics. I don’t like all of his resolutions, in particular the one that keeps supervisors from school donations. I know how critical that money is to some of the programs, especially now we have fallen on hard times. However, it was a starting point for discussion…many discussions that needed to take place. I felt we needed reform. I wasn’t willing to throw away all discretionary spending. Basically I wanted enough reform to keep supervisors from contributing what I consider huge amounts of money to non-profits that happen to be pet projects of relatives.
Now I find myself firmly in Camp Candland, planting my own flag of Wolf and Moon. Why? What makes a person do a 180 degree turn and land in the camp of someone they politically disagree with? Fairness. Candland tried to change things and rather than just voting him down, several of the supervisors had to immediately go for the bag of dirty tricks. The hypocriscy of some of the Jenkins amendments overwhelms me. The pandering by Corey Stewart sickens me, especially considering we thought the Jenkins amendments were directed at Stewart rather than Candland. Corey has a great deal of vulnerability with these amendments, as does Jenkins himself.
Rage and political expediency overtook some of the supervisors. It is time for all 8 of them to develop an individual brain and stop with the pack mentality. Show some class and show some individuality. Some of you all have been cavorting with Pete’s enemies. It is written all over the blogs. We can see the backstabbers and the ass kissers at every turn.
I wish there were a way to secede from the County. The actions of the Board of Supervisors sicken me.
So just out of curiosity, what becomes of the money made from the *I stand with Candland* apparel?
Is it going to a legal defense team or to the blogmeister’s fund?
Another dicey question: I have never heard of a staffer taking to the press, sheriff or anyone else without going off the record. Does Easterly still work for the Jenkins and if so, how is life treating her these days?
Why didn’t you supervisors just vote Pete down instead of going for the dirty bag of tricks? You could have easily outvoted him. Were you afraid that you might look bad? This is a very legitimate question.
7 outnumbers 1. That isn’t even higher math. As the days pass, the citizens of Gainesville MD and probably lots of other folks are going to be asking a lot of questions and asking the supervisors to take a stand. Your vote on those amendments said SCREW YOU to the taxpayers. Some of us don’t like that.
Six months ago I never, not in a million years, would have anticipated that Pete Candland would be the one to force the light to shine so brightly on the good ole boy network that has been how PWC does business.
good for Pete for not backing down on this one.
In every revolution, there has been at least one man or one woman who lead the way, regardless of the toil or the adversity.
Now, with odds of 7 to 1, well, militarily speaking, one man well equiped, well trained, and thinking can defeat hundreds.
Looks like the revolution is on, and just went up a notch.
What are they thinking? Ray, you know where I stand politically…not a conservative and really not a tea party person…and for Candland to gain my sympathy? Somethng is rotten in PWC for that to happen.
The mistake they made was allowing those amendments to attach right then and there rather than letting the people mull them over and to give the process due diligence. The supervisors said SCREW YOU to the people.
They should have listened to Candland. On Tuesday all he really asked for was time…time for the people to see the amendments. He got told no. He automatically won that round
The Battle of Dirty Tricks is on……
I seem to recall School board Chairman Johns asking this same bunch to just wait a week to vote on adding money to the school budget from the stimulus package. They told him no also and forged ahead, trying to look all bad ass. They voted it down and I guess someone else got the money. PWCS were 80 teachers short. Of course they took stimulus money over something else so there was no real principle there…just big assing.
The question now is, “What is Attorney Horan going to do with the questions Pete Candland has raised?” As Tom Jackman pointed out in his WaPo article, she is under no obligation to reply to Candland; however, I think she risks incurring the same wrath as the seven members of the Bullies of Candland Society. Although not as erudite as Candland, I did send in a number of questions to both Ms. Horan and County Executive Melissa Peacor. To-date, no reply–not even a “Thank you very much for your interest.” I suspect they are very busy trying to “Cover their six o’clock” as military aviators are known to say. This is a long way from over, Jenkins is already scrambling to find a way to not fire Ernestine the copy machine queen but Candland has very adeptly shown that you don’t have to pay someone for them to be considered an employee. There very well could be some empty supervisors’s office next week. It may not be a good idea to try to call them–there may not be anyone to answer the telephone. I have raised this question a couple of times in other places–Is it time for a special prosecutor to be appointed to look into this whole bloody mess of fund expenditures as well as the implications of the Jenkins amendments? Who would have to request this ? Is this the role of the Commonwealth Attorney to make such a request?
Perhaps the attorney general will rule on it. This is HIS county.
Watching all this is like watching an iceberg suddenly flip. I’m wondering if our new young council member will shake up things similarly in City of Manassas after July 1.
“Rocket docket” was an unfortunate phrase. More like a firecracker went off prematurely in someone’s pants pocket. Ouch.
A couple of thoughts.
1. There was a significant change in Candland’s office that must be aknowledged to understand the apparent change in his direction and the change in perception by those such as Moon and myself, namely the discharge of his initial chief of staff. Whatever the underlying reason, losing that bit of baggage seems to have created a circumstance wherein accessibility and the potential for reasoned discussion of the issues is a likely scenario.
2. With regard to the manner in which the BOCS operated on the amendments, technically, Jenkins and Stewart are correct in their analysis of the propriety. There is NO requirement for a public discourse or vetting of BOCS procedural rules. That being said, it is generally considered poor public policy not to disseminate them for review but historically that is the MO of our BOCS. In this particular instance the BOCS was likely well within their right to act on the amendments, the same can not be said for previous instances wherein “Pockets” Nohe would pull last minute prepared amendments from his back pocket at the meeting or Jenkins would reference amendments handed out only to staff and the BOCS members. In those instances (ie: the transportation and environmental chapters of the Comp Plan) they often didn’t even give the public the courtesy of reading them into the record, leaving many to wonder for days what the substantive changes were.
3. In my opionion, Ms. Horan is a very competent counsel in many areas, employment law, FOIA, etc. however in other areas such a BOCS procedure and land use interpretations, not so much. The above noted examples are a clear indication that she should probably take some CLE courses in those areas.
4. With regard to the Candland letter, the logic and analysis is a little tortured in some areas but that is to be expected as the purpose is inherently political as much as it is a complaint about the procedure and impacts of the “Jenkins” amendments. The only suggest I would make to Peter is that in the future, if similar letters are required, he should remove the personal references and make the letter as cold and sterile as possible so that there will be less room to critique it as nothing more than a personal attack by someone who lost on a particular issue.
5. Given the candidates and issues of the most recent election, this scenario was largely unavoidable. Too many questions have been raised over the past year regarding conflicts, procedure and past actions of the BOCS. It was inevitable that a member of the BOCS would get their knickers in a twist and avail themselves of that element of public discontent and distrust of the BOCS, particularly that loud element that exists in PWC on both sides of the aisle. That Candland as the Noob on the BOCS and thus likely the least conflicted became the catalyst isn’t all that surprising.
6. Six months ago I wouldn’t have dreamed of taking this position but for the time being, should Supervisor Candland require some of my particular talents and institutional knowledge, for a limited time at least, I will offer them. That being said, if you need some assistance Peter and I afford it, do not stab me in the back or ever, ever LIE to me, I can be particularly vindictive and destructive when so motivated.
All in all, PWC is likely at a crossroads, past practice is under scrutiny and has attracted unwanted attention from a number of corners, some of which (S.L.) have tacitly condoned it in the past. My guess is that this soap opera is far from over and likely will take a few more embarrassing and bloody turns. On the upside, particularly given some very recent land use applications, it appears that the public scrutiny and outcry may very well change the balance of power currently enjoyed by a select number of well-connected attorneys and entities. Someone has finally turned the light on the cockroaches.
One comment that sticks with me after watching the BOCS meeting for a third time, is that Supervisor Jenkins seemed to admonish andland for not coming in and talking to him.
Why is that necessary? Jenkins had a copy of the resolution Candland wanted to get passed. If there were questions or suggestions, why didn’t Jenkins pick up the phone and call Candland? Doesn’t Candland have a full time job? Is he supposed to quit it so he can ride circuit all over the county and pay homage to all?
Why didn’t the BOCS wait until the new fiscal year to start a new way of doing things. Why did it have to start that moment? Jenkins and Stewart aren’t going to be able to outrun this poisoning of the well.
@Cindy B
What does rocket docket mean? I thought it sounded obscene…like something sometimes said about dogs.
You are the monarch of understatement, MoM.
I don’t like it that those elected think they can just diss us. I would like them to at least have time to digest ordinances and resolutions before voting on them and sorry, not to be whiny but the public should have some input, whether its programmed or not.
Here’s a novel idea, just do away with citizens time and knock the public out of the entire process. What the hell do we have to do with it anyway?
@Mom
While I don’t know who you are or what your expertise is, I think it is generous of you to offer to help Mr. Candland–I just hope he knows who Mom is, unless of course, you are his mother. I find the use of nom de plumes very off putting– smacks of not having the strength of one’s convictions and please don’t give me the old “I must protect my identity for fear of reprisal” excuse–too old and too trite. BTW if S.L. Is Scott Lingamfelter, say do–real people want to know.
Both Jenkins and Stewart are treating Candland like he didn’t understand the “wink-wink; non-nod” way the Bullies of Candland Society does business. He knows and he is doing his best to do something about it. You can rest assured Jenkins, Stewart and Caddigan are busy trying to identify work arounds for the Jenkins debacle.
Am still pushing for a special prosecutor to come in to delve into this entire mess. Asking the BOCS, Ms. Horan or Ms. Peacor to do so is asking the fox to develop the security system for the hen house.
Different people have different reasons for using monikers. Its perfectly legal here. What isn’t legal here saying your name is anonymous. that isn’t a name.
@Moon-howler
You’re absolutely right–Jenkins was very clear in stating he didn’t make his intentions know because Candland did not personally discuss his proposal with his holiness. Empirious is a word that seems to fit Jenkins just about right.
@Ray Beverage
Ah yes–just ask Maxmillian Robespierre–simply lost his head over the whole idea of a resolution. Am not sure I agree with your military analogy unless, of course, the one thinking man is in possession of a nuclear device 😉 .
@George S. Harris
George, with regards to Ms. Horan and the statement by the Chairman in that article about how she does not have to respond, sorta kinda maybe conflicts with the job description (as noted on County Attorney webpage) about providing counsel and advice to the BOCS. She is in a tough spot – don’t respond and so it appears she chooses not to advise one Supervisor, or respond and gain the wrath.
By the way, with regards to the military analogy….oh my 11-Bravo Infantry heart saddens one would not know the motto of the Ultimate Weapon!!! Of course, if nuking, I am in favor of a hand held device a trained Grunt could toss 🙂
@Ray Beverage
Ray, you’re so right about Horan– between the proverbial rock and a hard place. As to the military analogy– youndidn’t mention #23 green ;-0
Ms. Horan is an employee. She has to do what she is told to do also. If she feels compromised she needs to resign.
The Sheriff is on another roll. I had to comment.http://sheriffofnottinghampwc.blogspot.com/2012/06/commoners-unite-dillon-was-right.html?showComment=1339335858645#!/2012/06/commoners-unite-dillon-was-right.html
There is a lot more action there than here. That Sheriff is unstoppable!
Comments?
@Moon-howler
I said it on the new piece about Candland’s continued efforts but it bears repeating here– what about Ms. Horan’s obligation to the laws of the Commonwealth? It is not her duty to simply do as she is told or resign–yes, she can resign but first she has a duty to state what the law requires and then she can resign snd the BOCS can chose to take the advice or ignore it at their peril.
Yes, they can chose to recognize her legal opinionor not. I have not said what Ms. HOran should do ethically or in accordance with her obligation to the Constitution of Virginia. That part is obvious. Buing around the blogosphere and reading comments, there seems to be some misunderstanding about the tail wagging the dog or vice versa.
Who pays her salary? That is the reality. I am not stating how I think things should be, but rather the way things are. I am not really speaking of Ms. Horan personally. I am speaking of anyone who is the county attorney for Prince William County government. That person is hired (and thus can be fired ) by the BOCS. That is the reality.
Of course, I understand that but you make it seem that she must just knuckle down and do whatever the BOCS wants without giving any legal opinion. That simply is not so. She can be fired but she has an obligation to set forth her legal opinion. To do less is to put her on the same level as the BOCS. I am not saying that her opinion will stand with the BOCS–they seem to do as they please but I believe that is about to change. Am still of the opinion that a special prosecutor is the answer. I don’t know who is supposed to make that happen; however, it might just start in Commonwealth Attorney Ebert’s office.
Who gets prosecuted? Who has been charged with wrong doing?What are we charging them with?
All I said is that she is an employee and serves at the discretion of of the BOCS. You chose to read some value into what I said. I wasn’t even referring to her personally, just the person that holds that position.
It was such an innocuous statement.