Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Who Gets Fired, Who Gets Payments Blocked?

By Greg L | 6 June 2012 | Prince William County | 8 Comments

I spent some time down at the Registrar’s office looking at the campaign finance reports filed by Prince William County supervisors, seeing who is listed as vendors to several campaigns.  Under the new “ethics” rules adopted by the Board of County Supervisors, there’s a lot of individuals and companies who can no longer be paid with taxpayer funds.  I wonder why these supervisors are so eager to fire members of their own staff?

County staff who appear as vendors on Chairman Stewart’s Campaign Finance Reports:

John Jenkins crafted this ridiculous proposal, which makes it rather surprising that he’d want to fire his own people this way.

County staff who appear as vendors on John Jenkins’ Campaign Finance Reports:

Now here’s a partial listing of some of the firms that have provided products or services to the campaigns of county supervisors, and whom are now not allowed to be paid using county funds:

Prince William County will now be required to track every business in the county to see if it has ever provided products or services to local political campaigns, and ensure that if that specific business has worked (even unwittingly) with a political campaign that the payment be blocked.  Frank Principi can’t submit a reimbursement request for a Verizon cell phone bill, but John Jenkins can, but Jenkins can’t pay AT&T.  Caddigan cannot buy postage stamps from the United States Postal Service, but because Chairman Stewart always reimburses his staff for miscellaneous expenses rather than paying the USPS directly, he can.  I can only imagine the nightmare this will cause in the county’s finance department.

So far I haven’t seen any supervisors pay electric utilities directly from a campaign account.  That should be fun, if some supervisors are blocked from having electricity in their office because NOVEC or Dominion Power provided electric service to a campaign office.

Legislate in haste, litigate at leisure.  I don’t think this idiocy will survive long enough for someone to file a lawsuit however, as the county staff must be going berserk as they mull through what this senile proposal will actually mean for them.  If for some reason it does stand for any length of time, I can certainly see some serious litigation opportunities here.   Not only has the General Assembly not authorized localities to bar companies from doing business with local government simply because a supervisor ate a hamburger in their joint or bought a pen in their store while campaigning for office, but such restrictions probably run afoul of the First Amendment

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.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.


  1. Chester said on 6 Jun 2012 at 2:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    It is my understanding that the vendor that supplies all the toilet paper at McCoart also supplied toilet paper for the Jenkins campaign and the vendor that supplies all Porta-Potties for the county provided a single transgender urinal/crapper unit for the Principi campaign. Now that stinks!

  2. Greg L said on 6 Jun 2012 at 3:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    Now that you mention it, Don’s Johns does appear as a vendor on Corey Stewart’s campaign finance report. Since Prince William County shows up as a vendor also (for renting some space for a campaign event) I have to wonder whether his office is allowed to flush a toilet, use a porta-potty, or will be forced to dig field latrines in the back of the McCoart building. Then again, since the county is a campaign vendor I’m not even sure if his office can occupy space in the McCoart building in the first place.

  3. Chester said on 6 Jun 2012 at 3:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    This needs to be said at least once a year.

    Mr. Greg - you are a great American.

  4. Not Marty said on 6 Jun 2012 at 6:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    I bet that Jenkins didn’t come up with on his own. I net je had help from the RINOS’s on the board.

    Pete- thanks for standing up for the residents of PWC. Now bend over!

  5. Loudoun Insider said on 6 Jun 2012 at 7:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    More great work! This is blogging at its finest, doing the job the paid press is too frigging lazy to do. Just imagine what guys like us could do if given the time and money to really investigate.

  6. Floyd The Pink Barber said on 6 Jun 2012 at 11:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’ll bet Jane Beyer shows up on Caddigan’s campaign finance reports…

  7. Ray Beverage said on 7 Jun 2012 at 10:23 am:
    Flag comment

    The Health Center is the interesting one considering who the Executive Director is, and who sits on their Board of Directors. Another interesting rabbit to follow…

  8. From afar said on 11 Jun 2012 at 10:05 am:
    Flag comment

    Now that the discretionary funds are dispensed with, I would suggest that some attention needs to be paid to the budget hold back provisions in the annual budget cycle. Simply when department abc submits it budget for the year for $20, the board votes on that amount and approves it. However, when department abc only uses $18, the $2 left over goes back to the county and the county executive and supervisors can use it as they please WITHOUT another budget vote. It is a neat little budget trick that gives the county executive and supervisors funds to fund projects that might not get through the normal budget cycle. Inflate the budget upfront will guarantee funding for certain projects at the end of the year. They should have applied the GAAP standard of putting the $2 back in the general fund to be re-appropriated under a direct vote. This budget trick is often known as hold back budgeting. This practice too should be banned which will bring more accountability to the process. The amount that the discretionary funds spent is dwarfed by this. Millions are misused and the citizens don’t have a say or accountability from their elected representatives.

Leave a Reply

Views: 8673