Loudoun Republicans Still Silent About Delgaudio’s Abuse Of Staff and County Tax Dollars

By Loudoun Insider

I can’t find a link to the story at the WaPo, but today’s Loudoun section article about yet another ineffectual plea for Delgaudio’s resignation from the LCDC states that Loudoun Supervisors, all 9 Republicans, and the Loudoun County Republican Committee have no comment about Delgaudio’s despicable actions.

You would think these supposed fiscal conservatives would not be happy about a public official wasting county tax dollars to have staff spend most of their time fund raising for him.  But nah, it’s A-OK if it is a fellow Republican furthering their own political fortunes.  If there happened to be just one Dem on the BOS (more evidence of the ineffectual worthless nature of the LCDC) and they were caught doing this you would bet there would be demands for, and a forthcoming investigation from fellow LCRCer Jim Plowman, our politically compromised Commonwealth’s Attorney.

I guess we all shouldn’t be surprised that the rest of this Board followed Delgaudio’s lead by refusing to sign the Code of Ethics that two previous Boards signed.  Now that they all see that Delgaudio is getting away with this, expect more to follow suit.  Their silence taints them immensely – we may as well assume they’re all doing this.


  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Yes Barb, an actual attorney who is a well known Loudoun Republican currently serving on a John Whitbeck committee. I remain amazed at the speed at which they cleared Delgaudio of law breaking, especially after tit took months and months to never reach the same conclusion apparently about Ron Speakman.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Barbara, I read King’s note, but he does not know what was provided to the Arlington CA either.

    I don’t think the Arlington CA office is a place where real things go to die. I’m just not confident real things ever get there.

    I guess we’ll trust Mr. Plowman, right?

  • Loudoun's Soul says:

    I have to weigh in on a comment of Barb’s regarding Jim Burton’s policy favoring some special interests over others. The policy requires that those who stand to profit from the land use decision should be visible to the public. If PEC (which is who I expect you mean) were to submit a land use application, they, too, would be required to provide all the same information. No favoritism — just wanting to make sure that the public knows where the money comes from and where the money goes.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    soul, there are many ways to profit from an application or policy decision besides making money on selling the product that results.

    Tax breaks, service contracts etc–all of which have figured for members of that group, or some of their subgroups.

    They’ve had a few no-bid contracts themselves, in marketing and “educational outreach”.

    If someone is going to propose a policy that benefits donors, resulting in either exclusive employment or tax benefits, that should be as thoroughly disclosed as anyone with land to develop or commercial space to rent.

    And that is why Lori Waters got pummeled for pointing out that benefit is benefit, and the rules should apply to all donors and lobbyists, even to “good” people.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Read Charlie’s note again eb–if the action does not rise to the level of law breaking the minutiae might not prove any different, and given that the fact that an attorney is a public position does not mean any member of the public has a “free” lawyer, the onus may be more on the person making the accusation to bring a truly smoking gun before the public office spends the time and money combing months of emails and phone records to put one together.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    p.s. eb–again, reread the note–some of the contents may be confidential, by law.

    regardless of how much lots of “we”s may want to read them, or feel entitled to, that might not be the case.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    LI, so, the fact that Charlie King is a Republican and volunteers on a 10th District Republican committee means he’s automatically corrupt when you don’t get the answer you want?

    That’s a pretty convenient conspiracy mode there!

    Seriously, do you mean to imply that someone who makes their livelihood practicing law lies on blogs for ****s and giggles?

    Or is that just a little dismissive hyperbole?

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Barbara, again, I know I can’t read it. So does the author, Mr. Plowman.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    How are the votes going to go for a Board investigation tonight? Can we do a pool?

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    There goes Meme Munsey again. I never said Charlie King was corrupt or is lying here. Never. And he is much more than an LCRC member – he provides legal advice to a large number of Loudoun Republican candidates and has served on many political committees. He is simply predisposed to protecting his team as anyone in such a position would be, and people should be aware of that when they read his comments. He isn’t just some random lawyer stopping in here to dispense legal opinion, and as anyone knows, getting two lawyers to agree on anything isn’t exactly easy to do.

    And why don’t we move this discussion of Charlie King’s comment to the appropriate comment thread.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    No LI, you just said “an actual attorney who is a well known Loudoun Republican currently serving on a John Whitbeck committee.”

    You didn’t SAY he was lying in those specific words–you just dismissed what he said because he’s a Republican who happens to associate with other Republicans…and we all know what all of them are–lol!

    eb, yes, we can’t all read all of it. You could FOIA all emails and phone records, etc, and read them, which I’m sure some people are doing. Maybe send whatever you find to the SPLC, since the entire northern VA region is institutionally corrupt?

  • liz says:

    Look, Barbara, the point everyone is trying to make, that you seem to want to ignore is that there is no-one in this county who is not biased either for or against Delgaudio.

    There is no-one in this county who is not trying to spin this one way or another. Including you. Including me.

    So, we are at an impasse. The only way OUT of the impasse is for the BOS to form a committee consisting of equal numbers of people who are biased FOR Delgaudio and people who are biased AGAINST Delgaudio, and one person who hopefully has never even heard of Delgaudio – perhaps a judge or something from West Virginia or Maryland.

    Because a committee with that kind of make-up doing its work in the open would be seen as being fair. Neither whitewashing nor witch hunting.

    If the BOS can’t bring itself to do that, then the county will know that the problem is not with Delgaudio, it is with the BOS as a whole. And that is a completely different kettle of fish.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Oh dear.

    Barbara, it takes some real dissociation to accuse LI and me of jumping to YOUR conclusions.

  • Loudoun Insider says:


    Move discussion of that comment to the other thread.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    and Liz, the point that you are studiously ignoring in making it primarily partisan is that first, what are the necessary qualifications to serve on such a committee (BESIDES party affiliation–which assumes uncontrollable bias, on either side? really? even the Dems?), and what are the areas of expertise outlined in any rules for convening one?

    What if, as the BoS is the final authority in some issues (as noted in all of the material–no matter WHO posted it–on the Whitener case), members of any investigation convened have to be sitting board members?

    Is there any legal threshhold that would have to be met (proven corruption, as opposed to opinion) to get the equivalent of a change of venue? Is there any such process outlined, and where?

    The bad news might be that it lets out people like your husband or Burton if so, or any citizen with a name in a hat. Which might actually be a good thing legally–I mean in the world of set defined standards, as opposed to what people wish could happen.

    The good news is that not only would it provide tons of blog fodder, but if the board does find something to censure him for, he’d lose on appeal, right?

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    eb, good development of the psychiatric dismissal–from projection to dissociative disorders. Good one!

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Liz, one more thought on bias, sans any partisan overtones: you assume that anyone who is not biased against is automatically biased FOR (again, see “correct speech”).

    Which again, does not necessarily address parameters of how to actually go about this.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Boy, I sure hope Barb brings up this topic for discussion at the next Government Reform Commission meeting.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    LI, as I’ve told you before that’s up to the BoS. It appears they’ve chosen to handle it themselves.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Some excellent comments on today’s WaPo article:


    ED makes such a great poster child for Loudoun County, doesn’t he???

  • liz says:

    Barbara feel free to name anyone who is not against Delgaudio and also not for him.

    Please. I am really curious who you’ll come up with.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Moved this comment here from the top post where it didn’t quite fit:

    October 3, 2012 at 12:17 PM (Edit)

    Just saw in my email the LCDC Chair taking on the York, Delgaudio and the Supervisors. I can’t believe the BOS didn’t pass a code of ethics. Here’s the statement that was apparently given to the Board this morning.

    Chairman York, Vice Chairman Clarke, Members of the Board:

    I’m here to speak to you this morning about Loudoun’s past and future.

    Between 2003 and 2007, a Republican-led Board of Supervisors damaged the reputation of Loudoun County when it became public in press reports that the FBI was investigating Republican Board Members and Planning Commissioners for alleged improper dealings with those that sought to influence government. That was an unfortunate and regrettable period in Loudoun County history.

    That Republican Board was swept out of office by a Democratic majority that took office in 2008. With your help at the time, Chairman York, the Democrats adopted a Code of Ethics for Board members. Only one Board Member opposed the ethics pledge – Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio. During the ensuing four years the public did not question the ethics or integrity of our County government. There were no FBI investigations. There were no days in which it was embarrassing to wake up a Loudoun County resident.

    Unfortunately I stand before you today as, once again, a Republican led Board of Supervisors has cast a negative light on Loudoun County. Recent press reports indicate that Supervisor Delgaudio – he who has never felt the need to sign an ethics pledge – has misused County resources, staff and dollars to advance his personal fundraising interests. It’s been reported that, yet again, the FBI is investigating the actions of a Board Member in Loudoun County.

    Supervisor Delgaudio’s alleged misuse of County resources might have been avoided had this Board, perhaps learning the lesson from their Republican Party predecessors, adopted a Code of Ethics that had worked to keep our government focused on educating our kids, maintaining our quality of life and building our economy. This Board’s failure to agree to a simple Code of Ethics is a failure of leadership on your part, Chairman York, and a reflection that this Board might think it’s beyond reproach.

    I call on this Board to immediately take necessary actions to appoint an independent, external authority, an Inspector General, to address this betrayal of the public trust. It’s in the public’s interest to have an investigation that’s independent of this Republican Board of Supervisors. This Inspector General should report back to the citizens of Loudoun County after:

    ● Examining the alleged misuse of County resources by Supervisor Delgaudio;
    ● Investigating each Board Member’s use of County resources to determine if other Board Members have misused County resources;
    ● Making public all internal communications between and among Loudoun County elected officials related to Supervisor Delgaudio’s alleged misuse of County resources;
    ● Investigating when members of this Board were made aware of Supervisor Delgaudio’s alleged misconduct and what they did with that information;
    ● Investigating what information was given to Commonwealth’s Attorney Jim Plowman and what information Plowman passed along to the Arlington County Commonwealth’s Attorney to determine the need for an investigation;
    ● Determining if any laws were broken.

    Mr. Chairman, it is without joy that I stand before you today to suggest the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors open itself up to outside investigation. Indeed, I expect more from our government. But I can’t help but wonder if this all would have been avoided had you led, Mr. Chairman, and encouraged passage of the Code of Ethics that worked to ensure our local government operated ethically.

    I respectfully suggest this Board act today, as you should have when you took office, and adopt the Code of Ethics.

Leave Comment