Best Supervisor On The BOS? Shawn F-ing Williams

By Loudoun Insider

Yeah, yeah , I can still complain about his pro-Metro vote, but other than that he has been pretty damn awesome, especially for being the lone voice of reason in regard to the volunteer sign clean-up program and the holiday display matter.  Before his election I thought he would be the weakest, but he’s been the strongest.  His Facebook post about the Eugene Delgaudio mess just proves it again:

“I have been very concerned about the allegations regarding Supervisor Delgaudio misusing County staff and resources for political purposes. I first learned of the allegations against Supervisor Delgaudio when I read the story in the Washington Post in late September. Working with my colleagues on the Board of Supervisors, we initiated an investigation to find out whether County policy was violated at the following business meeting on October 3rd. Since then, that investigation has been superseded by a criminal investigation. The Board’s investigation is on hold because our investigation could interfere with the criminal investigation. The actions the Board can take against an individual member of the Board are limited, but there are some that have been discussed. The Board will be holding a special meeting to address this topic on Tuesday November 20th at 5:30pm. At this meeting, I will push for Supervisor Delgaudio to be removed from his positions on the Finance, Government Services and Operations Committee and the Transportation and Land Use Committee while he is under criminal investigation. I strongly believe it is incumbent on the Board to act with the highest ethical standards and have no tolerance for those who act with any impropriety.”



  • Baron Rosedown says:

    I think Williams might be the only Sup who has officially gone on record with the ins and outs of the Delgaudio fiasco..errr..investigation.
    Williams’ stance and statement is solid and arguably the most rational of all the Sups. His statement alone seems to paint a very dim picture for Delgaudio. Except for the Chairman being stripped of his Chairmanship powers by Tolluch, I can not remember any other time a sitting Supervisor was sanctioned.

  • Viper says:

    Here’s a sign that Delgaudio is about done.

  • Laura Lieberman says:


    Shawn Williams is a lawyer, correct? Maybe that’s why he is the voice of reason…he has a better appreciation and understanding of the law.

    And when I think back of the meetings where Eugene referred to the LoCo sign pickers (myself included) as “Nazis” and “vigilantes” it makes me chuckle. The worst we did was volunteer our time and energy…and, somehow, we were the bad guys.

  • John Marsh says:

    Given the BOS field, maybe he’s the better one, but his position on the school budget cuts smacks more of ideology than reason– which he’s not presented — and his support of the Hounds moving to One Loudoun, without the kind of Board reconsideration, citizen input and staff review of impacts on neighbors (see appears to reinforces his Chamber of Commerce bias; commerce before assessment of benefits and costs.

    I appreciate your observation but perhaps we’re in danger of measuring from an already distorted base.

  • Holy sh#$ Batman, Supervisors break the law says:

    “I never heard about this until September.” Yet Scott York claims he referred it to Stamos way back when? Shouldn’t Chairman York be under investigation for his attempt to cover up this criminal behavior?

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Oh for just one D on that board…

  • Lady M says:

    Shawn Williams just earned himself a whole lot respect. He stood up for the right thing to do. He stood up for ethics. He stood up against abuse of power. Will he be the only one?

  • BlackOut says:

    Bravo Mr. Williams! Oh how easy it should have been for York to do this back in March.

    Now the question is…how many other Supervisors will go along with the William’s motion come Tuesday?

    Who wants to bet that Reid will say Delgaudio deserves all the criticism he is getting and that he needs to be sanctioned after the investigation and that he agrees with Williams, but then will say he’s not voting for the Williams resolution for some convoluted reason.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Where are the other statements? If Williams can make one, everyone can make one.

  • Shiloh says:

    Baron -“I can not remember any other time a sitting Supervisor was sanctioned.”

    It’s happened twice since 1994: Charlie Grant and Steve Whitener, both in the 1990’s. This was discussed in an earlier thread about ED, which I can’t find at the moment. It’s not without precedent.

  • NeedsAHero says:

    This statement has been a very long time in coming. The Southern Poverty Law Center identified Public Advocate as a hate group in March, well before the Washington Post story.–74268.html

  • Smith says:

    Its pretty sad when we are praising someone for something that all of them should have done months ago.

    a very sarcastic and slow golf clap to Mr. Williams.

    And this on the same day you link to RealLoudouns latest post on the Hounds and Mr. Williams BS response to complaints.

    Like I said, sarcastic Golf clap.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    It’s reasonable to be cautious until the investigation is complete, just as it’s reasonable to outsource the investigation.

    What would one D do on the BoS, other than get more statements into the press as an official?

    Baron, Tulloch did not “strip York of his powers”–when the office of Chair at Large was created in Loudoun, they attached no specific duties to it, leaving it defined under existing law.

    The rules of order are set at the beginning of each year, and include the duties of the chair (who is, on most corporate boards, elected at that time along with a vice chair, which is how they do it in some of our neighboring counties, and how our school board does it).

    In 2004, York was not part of the majority, who voted to give him no ADDITIONAL duties beyond those defined in state code, which promptly brought out those who had supported the majority of which he had been a part in previous terms, howling that he had been illegally stripped of…”traditional”, as opposed to statutory…powers. There’s a big difference between law and “we like it this way”.

    That can cut both ways, as still remains to be seen here. Some would very much like for Delgaudio to have done something actionable, but it remains to be seen if that’s the case. In the meantime, Willimas is being prudent. No problems with that.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “What would one D do on the BoS, other than get more statements into the press as an official?”

    The closed sessions would be different. The one’s where they are getting “advice from counsel”.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    If you think so, eb.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    You don’t understand, eb, this government is being “reformed” by the LCRC. Learn to love it.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Total diversion LI, as is the idea that “even one D” would change everything.

    “Even one D” would be bound by the same strictures of closed session, unless they chose to ignore them (as has been done in the past, and no sanctions there even though that is actionable behavior too).

    Do you trust the Arlington CA or not? If so, and if you support their appointment to handle it, then wait and see. In the meantime, while not jumping on the hysteria bandwagon, note that I said what Williams is doing is prudent.

  • David says:

    Translation: You people should all shut up.

    Rinse, repeat.

  • BlackOut says:

    Barbara, I did notice you thought William’s approach and recommendation is prudent. We are in agreement.

    I also think it is fair to say without a significant amount of information and pressure coming from outside of Leesburg we would not be seeing a prudent response.

    It’s unfortunately Williams or other board members were not advised of this situation back in March. Leaving this to a secret group of York, Clarke and Delgaudio to manage has turned into a nightmare, and the criticism they have received is also prudent.

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    “Shouldn’t Chairman York be under investigation for his attempt to cover up this criminal behavior?”

    Absolutely! He withheld literally hundreds of dcouments intentionally. It matters not if they had damning evidence in them or not. That was not York’s call to make.

    Intentionally withholding information from investigators – that sure sounds like a coverup to me.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    David, it appears you are “telling someone else’s story” (mine), which you sometimes claim is a no-no.

    Still waiting: does anyone trust the Arlington CA, or will that depend on whether you agree with whatever she finds?

    Rinse, repeat.

    BlackOut, I also note that he suggests the suspension until the investigation is complete, which leaves the door open to whatever is eventually found (or not).

    There’s been pressure since before last year’s election, which amped up when the decision of the local electorate was unanimous. If we could separate the political from the factual (which hopefull the investigation will define, to some degree–for some, it will always be a matter of political pressure), the pressure might have better perspective too.

  • David Dickinson says:

    Innocent until proven guilty. Removing him from his positions based on allegations is unethical. You would think a “lawyer” would know that.

    Wait until something is proven, and then take appropriate measures.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Barbara, do you believe the discussion in closed session is the same with no D in attendance as it would be if there was a D in attendance?

  • Baron Rosedown says:

    I am wondering why did Williams deleted his fb statement, along with the various comments? His statement was “live” less than two hours ago and now it’s gone.

  • Ed Myers says:

    @DD, don’t confuse criminally actionable from violation of policy or rules. Delgado has admitted to using my tax dollars to fundraise for a private charity. The bos should slap his hands for being so liberal with other people’s money.

  • A.E. Gnat says:

    Baron, probably because York chewed him out for it, along with replacing the originally-scheduled Supervisors’ meeting on the 20th with a “Town Hall with the Chairman” meeting.

  • Lady M says:

    Thank you Ed Myers. Delgaudio took actions that won’t be found to be criminal but still were violations of county policy and basic decency. The BOS needs to police themselves and hold each other to much higher standards. Delgaudio has been placated long enough.

    There are two sets of violations here. The BOS needs to take care of the county policy and abuse of employee violations. In the long run, the whole county government will benefit.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Good. Grief. It’s gone?

    Because he was showing up the other Board Members.

    I’m concerned we are heading toward lowest common denominator here now…

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    eb, I’ve no doubt there would be minor differences in discussion, which would come down to personality–they all function under the same laws and policies, whether R, D or I. There is no guarantee that “even one” D (unless they are of the Lightbringer™ model) would cause a seismic shift in any vote taken after the closed session was exited.

  • David Dickinson says:

    And because stating he was pushing for punishment before the investigation is over is not very smart.

  • liz says:

    Um…it’s not punishment, it’s good policy. Deputies get put on desk duty for alleged offenses before investigations are complete, why not supervisors?

    Pulling him off committees that have oversight of the things he’s alleged to have done is merely prudent, and is standard practice in Congress.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Minor differences in discussion? I think more than minor.

    There would be a set of ears present that are not part of the LCRC.

    I don’t care if it was a D, an Independent would be fine too.

    The dynamics in the discussion — especially on these matters that affect party business and county business — would be very different.

    This is how folks voted though, so this is what we are all dealing with. I think I said this back when the votes were counted (and additionally with the construction of the GRC), adding Ds/Is PROTECTS Rs. It builds in accountability.

  • David Dickinson says:

    If what he is accused of is directly related to “Finance, Government Services and Operations Committee and the Transportation and Land Use Committee,” then that may be prudent.

    But improper fundraising has no direct effect on any of them.

    And if the standard for stripping someone of assignments is that an accusation is made, then that makes for a powerful political tool. If there is a close vote, make an accusation and have someone’s powers temporarily taken away. I don’t think this case is so frivolous, but acting prematurely could set precedent for abuse.

  • BlackOut says:

    Baron, my guess is Williams removed it because the comments were getting completely out of control by the usual suspects of Stoner and Genie Martini. The only reasonable comment was from Joe B and Shawn respectful responded.

    Barbara, I’ve already stated I trust the Arl CA.

  • BlackOut says:

    DD, seriously!? fundraising has no effect on “Finance, Government Services and Ops”?

    The BOS was allowing Delgaudio to participate in discussions about how to revamp the policy on aides!! While under investigation. That ain’t right. It has a DIRECT impact.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    eb, did you miss the part where I said there are strictures on discussion being carried out of closed session? That’s why they’re closed. As I said, some have ignored that before.

    BlackOut, I know you responded–I believe you’re the only one who HAS.

  • David Dickinson says:

    Keeping him out of the aide discussion makes sense, but the others are tangential.

    Fundraising indirectly effects everything. On that basis, you’d have him sit on his hands for months while an accusation is investigated.

    Innocent until proven guilty.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Good gosh Barbara, do you think strictures are in total control of the type of conversation that happens in closed session? And since you seem fond of admitting there may be those that ignore them, yeah, that might be a point in favor of my wish instead of in opposition to it.

    Who creates the strictures?

    I trust the Arlington CA as much as I trust most processes. Which means garbage in/garbage out — which is why the thing is back on her desk.

  • Ravi Oli says:

    There is a wolf howling in the distance. There is a jackal gnashing its teeth. There is a clinking of metal.

    Ravi protests the Eugene apologist’s protestations.

    Mr. David Dickinson says, “Innocent until proven guilty.”

    Ravi respectfully says, “Duh.”

    Mr. David Dickinson says, “But improper fundraising has no direct effect on any of them.”

    Ravi playfully says, “So what?”

    There is a classic song by Ms. Linda Ronstadt, where the lyrics go something like this:

    Feeling better now that your through –
    Feeling better ’cause we’re over you –
    We’ve learned our lesson, it left a scar –
    Now we see what a douche you are –

    You’re no good
    You’re no good
    You’re no good
    Eugene, you’re no good

    Ravi believes that the very hand of God is engaged in this situation. The howling wolf is the public. The jackal with gnashing teeth is Eugene. The clinking of metal is the shutting of a jail-house door. Destiny’s child. Indeed.

  • BlackOut says:

    DD, Delgaudio has been accused of ethical violations. What part of government do you consider not effected by ethnics? If you are going to start parching what and what not Delgaudio can be involved in that’s probably an easier approach.

  • John Marsh says:

    BlackOut has it right. Ethical violations from admitted fundraising clearly suffices for removal of committee assignments.

    It would have helped had this Board adopted an ethics policy, but the violation remains.

    Now where’s the other board member to join Williams in having a special board meeting? Higgins?? No, not likely. Too busy with his day job and too weak to take a stand Patrick Henry might find objectionable.

  • BlackOut says:

    Williams is again leading with reason. I am going to bet a majority of this board also agree with him. And that doesn’t include York.

    I am going to guess York is feeling threatened by Williams. And to that what really sting York is that Williams is on the right side of this issue. York not so much. Sucks when you have boxed yourself into the wrong side of the ring.

  • David says:

    DD, you’re getting confused again. See, an “accusation” isn’t the same thing as a “criminal investigation.” Anyone can make an “accusation,” as you’ve correctly pointed out. What has followed the accusations in this case is the disclosure of evidence in support of the accusations (albeit seven months later than it should have been), then a determination that the evidence points to criminal behavior.

    You probably didn’t read the letter of engagement from the county attorney to the investigator, but it included a clause stating that if during the course of the investigation, evidence is discovered that may relate to a criminal charge, the investigation is to be suspended and turned over to appropriate law enforcement officials. That’s exactly what happened.

    It’s standard procedure to put anyone under criminal investigation on suspension of some sort. Delgaudio should be prohibited from any decision making – that’s just common sense. We don’t even know what the content of the criminal investigation is yet. Given York’s most recent actions, it’s apparent that he is afraid of Delgaudio for some reason and will continue protecting him no matter what. This needs to stop, now. Williams and one other supervisor need to call the meeting and do what needs to be done, because the Chairman can’t.

  • NeedsAHero says:

    “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”
    — The Wizard of Oz

    Time for the vice chair to disassociate with York and Delgaudio.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    “Good gosh Barbara, do you think strictures are in total control of the type of conversation that happens in closed session? And since you seem fond of admitting there may be those that ignore them, yeah, that might be a point in favor of my wish instead of in opposition to it.”

    No eb, but thanks for proving that your desire for another set of ears is in order to ignore the law and get info from those closed sessions for dissemination outside the bounds of current law. The strictures aren’t to control what is discussed IN session, but to prevent those who are empowered to be there from carrying information that is EXEMPT BY LAW from open discussion out of the closed discussion. Gee, even one D (with no respect for BOTH sides of open government law?) could make SUCH a difference!

    “Who creates the strictures?” The same law you hope the Arlington CA will find Delgaudio to be violating. The law is not always justice, but it is the law and both sides are supposed to obey it whether they like it, agree with it, or not, right?

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “No eb, but thanks for proving that your desire for another set of ears is in order to ignore the law and get info from those closed sessions for dissemination outside the bounds of current law.”

    I did really laugh out loud at this, Barbara.


  • edmundburkenator says:

    Wait. Barbara, before we go at it again, I see a potential misunderstanding.

    I was saying that there are those that may not follow “stricture” inside a 9-0 R BOS (or a 9-0 D BOS for that matter). My concern was for inside an session.

    I wasn’t saying that some single D or R or I would feel free to ignore rules and make private things public — as it seems you inferred — outside of a session.

  • Tony Barney says:

    This matter is only going to get worst.
    Mr. Delgaudio should do the honorable thing and resign by years end.

  • A.E. Gnat says:

    “Mr. Delgaudio should do the honorable thing…” is about as oxymoronic a phrase as I’ve ever heard.

    I doubt he’d decide to all of a sudden decide to start being honorable, you know… rage, rage against the dying of the light and such.

Leave Comment