Too Little, Too Late: UPDATED With More Stench

By Loudoun Insider

How can anyone take any of this pontification seriously from Supervisors about Supervisor aide policy after they sat on the Eugene Delgaudio crap for months doing nothing until the Washington Post forced their hand???  NONE of this would be happening if not for the harsh sunlight of the WaPo.  That much is painfully obvious, and colors anything they do or say now.

UPDATE:  Real Advocate gets their documents as the county blinks, and it makes the cover up look even worse.  Plowman and Stamos apparently never received the supporting documentation.  But they apparently didn’t really push to get it either.  Real Advocate blog post here with more info.  So once again, if it weren’t for the harsh light of the FOIA request, we would all still believe that the Arlington CA cleared Delgaudio of any wrongdoing, which is a total fabrication.  Disgusting.

WTF!!! UPDATE:  The LTM actually printed this online:

Delgaudio is under fire after a series of investigative reports, including from the Times-Mirror, The Washington Post and LGBTQ Nation magazine, that alleged Delgaudio directed Mateer and other staff aids to raise funds for political elections, an action that goes against county policy.

What investigative report from the Loudoun Times-Mirror???????????


Comments

  • Barbara,

    An IG recommendation *is* on the LCGRC’s plate. The LCGRC isn’t the IG and it isn’t charged with conducting an investigation. Your response made it sound like the IG recommendation isn’t on the LCGRC’s plate. That’s wrong. You may want to clarify.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Jonathan, your post made it sound as if the GRC’s charge to study and give a recommendation would somehow have prevented the current situation your pac is using, or perhaps caused it.

    An IG could be quite beneficial, but, as with the investigation already approved to be undertaken by an independent body, politically I doubt an IG hired by the current BoS would be considered suitable to the same partisans who think an independent investigator hired by the current BoS (as opposed to a panel headed by local Dems) is sufficient.

  • Really? I thought I said:

    So what of the IG? Will the LCGRC recommend a permanent new position and an expansion of government? If so, will the BoS be within the IG’s reach? Supervisor Buona hinted that it should be.

    I never implied that an IG recommendation one way or the other would have prevented the current situation because I realize that the current situation is as old as original sin. I was correcting the misinformation about LCGRC duties that you supplied A.E. Gnat and other readers.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Anything associated with the 9-0 LCRC BOS is basically the same as the LCRC.

    Single party rule sucks, no matter what party is ruling so.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Jonathan, aeg began the portion of the discussion with
    “A.E. Gnat says:
    October 26, 2012 at 11:46 AM
    One of the “key areas” that the Board has directed the LCGRC to focus on includes: “Examine ways for government to be more transparent, user friendly, and accountable to citizens.”
    in reference to me/the commission questioning/obtaining results from Scott York.

    I replied that the FOIA/investigation was not something on our plate 10/26, 2:20 p.m.

    aeg’s post of 10/28 at 2:28 p.m. referenced “finally getting around to reading” my post of two days previous, i.e. the reply that the investigation and questioning York is not in our purview, to which you replied
    “Jonathan Weintraub says:
    October 28, 2012 at 3:16 PM
    A.E. Gnat,

    But it *is* on the LCGRC’s plate.”
    and then went on to conflate that with an IG, in the rest of the post from which your excerpt
    “Jonathan Weintraub says:
    October 28, 2012 at 5:37 PM
    Really? I thought I said:

    So what of the IG? Will the LCGRC recommend a permanent new position and an expansion of government? If so, will the BoS be within the IG’s reach? Supervisor Buona hinted that it should be.

    I never implied that an IG recommendation one way or the other would have prevented the current situation because I realize that the current situation is as old as original sin. I was correcting the misinformation about LCGRC duties that you supplied A.E. Gnat and other readers.”
    is obtained.

    It appears to be a selective edit (as with some of the material highlighted on the pac blog), and in addition another “thought experiment” “use case analysis” such as the one you tried to establish as policy back when the commission was empanelled, in which your interpretation of the directive to not discuss commission business on blogs really meant “do not participate on blogs at all on any subject ever”.

    You are certainly entitled to hold whatever opinion you wish on any subject, however, if you are going to take it upon yourself to “correct misinformation” then you should be aware of the difference between your opinion and actual information.

Leave Comment