Discretionary Funds Die A Long-Awaited Death
By Greg L | 5 June 2012 | Prince William County | 18 Comments
Today the Board of Supervisors outlawed giving excess magisterial district funds to non-governmental entities and any governmental entities that receive appropriations directly from the Board of Supervisors. This is a victory for the taxpayers that has been very long in coming. Much thanks to Supervisor Peter Candland for leading the charge on this.
Supervisor Jenkins offered a series of amendments to Supervisor Candland’s motion that appear to have in part targeted Supervisor Candland for political payback by making it unlawful for Supervisor Candland to continue to employ his legislative aid, since that aid also worked on his election campaign. Until I see the actual language of the final motion it’s hard to tell if this was in fact the case, or whether there were other ways the board would punish Candland for standing up for the level of ethical behavior and fiscal responsibility that the board should have already been displaying.
When the final language of the adopted motion becomes available I’ll be posting it here, along with some analysis of what it all means.
UPDATE: The Washington Post describes Jenkins’ amendments as “tangential weirdness” that no one understood before they were voted on. My, with Borden and Jackman on the beat, I sure have to say that the WashPo is doing a heck of a lot better covering Prince William County politics than before.
Tweet This
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.
18 Comments
Leave a Reply
Views: 599
Loading ...
Did Candyland really vote …”NO” on the anti nepotism amendment???? What a mindless DOPE? he couldn’t figure out on the fly that that amendment was OK??? Who is running this guy?
Everyone applauds the killing of the slush funds. But the people of Haymarket are being I’ll served if their Supervisor can’t figure out that nepotism is bad without consulting someone or giving it some “thought”!!
Ill served
Having a nephew stuff envelopes and answer the phone for free in your district office is a bad thing? I think Jon Wong has been eating some fortune cookies that sat in the box too long.
When the blob Jenkins offered an amendment to outlaw nepotism in the hiring of Supervisor Office employees…The Honorable Candland voted….”NO”. Check the record! That vote will come back to haunt the good Supervisor.
Thus the question whether he can think on his feet?
Speaking of THE BLOB Jenkins…Who else would have invited Moochelle Obama to the Dale City VFW???
Both the Washington Post and myself believe these amendments were considered in haste without sufficient evaluation. The Post even called them “tangential weirdness.” When the WashPo and I agree on something, in that Candland was right to ask for some time to review these to understand what they meant and how they would be applied, that’s an awfully rare agreement.
And in fact it appears that they had to make changes to the wording at the evening session since there was some unintended effect of the wording. ONCE AGAIN it appears that Supervisor Candland has the right approach and the board should have allowed time to consider AND understand the motion as made (like they did with the original motion though I suppose they regretted not putting that to bed on May 15 when Candland first made the motion). I still have a feeling that this is a set of motions meant to punish Candland but they should add to the motion that even non-paid relatives can’t work (much less run the show) in a Supervisor’s office. Sound familiar Jenkins?
What changes were made? I just put up a post about how stupid these amendments were and would love to see if this bunch that can’t shoot straight has figured out that they can’t buy electric power anymore since NOVEC and Dominion Power both offer electric power to candidates for office.
The original language of the 2nd Jenkins amendment
“No Board member will employ or retain any full-time or part-time employee on the County payroll who owns, is employed by, or is a contractor to any company which offers services for hire to any political campaign of that Board member”
and they changed it to
“No Board member will employ or retain any full-time or part-time employee on the County payroll who owns, is employed by, or is a contractor to any company which HAS PROVIDED OR PROVIDES services for hire to A political campaign of that Board member”
But once again, why go through this without due diligence by staff AND letting other Supervisors see it before an immediate vote. Yes this is purely punishment towards Supervisor Candland and is an indication of the leadership of Chairman Stewart and I have to say he just lost my support for Lt Gov. Petty Petty Petty and that deserves Petty in return.
Wait, Jane Beyer works for Supervisor Caddigan in her magisterial district office. Jane Beyer was also Supervisor Caddigan’s campaign manager in 2011. Doesn’t that mean she can no longer work for Supervisor Caddigan under this new language of “HAS PROVIDED OR PROVIDES” that was adopted?
Why yes Riley it does. But then again, you didn’t think Maureen actually thought this through yesterday, especially as she would have had to do so on her feet and without the aid of her minions. I can just hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth in her office.
How is it that the amendments “punish Supervisor Candland”? Whether the resolution amendments are good or whether they are bad, they apply to all Supervisors.
freedom,
They “punish Supervisor Candland” because that was the only and true intent of the motion. As the discussion alludes to, this will ultimately effect some Supervisors but the original intent by Jenkins was pure hardball vindictiveness against Candland. What is very telling is that Stewart allowed these amendments that had nothing to do with the original motion be voted on immediately without any due diligence with staff or the Supervisors themselves.I am sure the agreement between Jenkins and Stewart was to vote on these immediately otherwise the blogosphere will highlight them for what they really were and it would be hard to implement. Want it bad and you usually get it bad.
This is really getting to be a full load circus and highlights we need some fresh blood on the BOCS. Supervisor Candland showed true courage and is the type of new blood we need.
I don’t understand the benefit of outlawing campaign workers or family members from working in a Supervisor’s office.
How can the amendments which apply to all supervisors be intended as “punishment of Candland”? I don’t see how the amendments did anything but good for us as county taxpayers…and of course, with time, should some aspect of the resolution that passed prove undesireable, it can be rescinded the same way it was approved. The only aspect of the amendments that I can see as singularly hurtful to Peter Candland is that they render the final approved reolution as a collective “BOCS resolution,” vice a “Candland resolution.” Is that somehow “bad”?
Sometimes you can write a rule so that a very narrow set of people — even just one person — will be affected. That was pretty clearly the intent here.
The overtime/comp time amendment focused on the Gainesville office’s history of granting comp time to county employees when their duties kept them past an 8 hour day. Some folks racked up quite a bank of comp time that got paid as vacation time when Supervisor Stirrup left office.
The “campaign employees can’t be legislative staff” targeted Peter’s aide Reece Collins, who moved from Candland’s campaign staff to his legislative staff after Candland won the election. The Board even revisted the language on this one during the evening session to make sure it applied where they wanted it to.
The “campaign vendors can’t work for the supervisor’s office” amendment is hard to figure out as far as targets. For all I know, it may have been targeting me since I do work for campaigns and would be interested in working for district offices.
The “nepotism” amendment may have been trying to target Candland’s nephew, who works in his legislative office. Since that nephew isn’t paid staff, I figure this was a misfire.
Kinda interesting coincidence about what constituted these proposals, isn’t it?