PW BOCS Set To Vote On Candland’s Conflict Of Interest Resolution
The Prince William Board of County Supervisors, after playing games last time to forestall the inevitable day of reckoning on conflicts of interest, is now set to vote next Tue., Aug. 7, on Gainesville Supervisor Pete Candland’s resolution.
This was not without additional gamesmanship, however, as once again the county “forgot” to include his resolution on the agenda circulated to the BOCS nor was a copy of it included, either. It has made it onto the agenda just released to the public, though. (An initial “glitch” kept the text of the resolution from being accessible, but that has now been rectified.)
Think that is the end of things? Not by a long shot. As the Sheriff of Nottingham has posted and I have independently confirmed, County Attorney Angela Horan is providing political cover in advance to board members to vote against the conflict of interest resolution via an opinion that the Board cannot restrict its members from voting on anything. Who requested this opinion and why? Did she take the initiative to draft such an opinion that wasn’t called for by any supervisor? Very doubtful.
The resolution makes a lot of sense and Horan’s reported opinion doesn’t hold water (shocking, I know, given that she is apparently giving the BOCS such sound advice on how to circumvent Virginia’s Open Meetings law.)
Okay, if some Board members don’t like that they would be barred from voting on matters where they have a conflict of interest, then I would suggest the resolution be amended by striking the word “barred” and replacing it with “encouraged to recuse oneself.” At the same time, I would like to see Board members be required to publicly declare during the meeting just prior to a vote any conflicts they may have. Then everyone will know and be able to judge for themselves whether a supervisor should be voting on a particular matter or not. That kind of transparency is what we need.
15 Responses to “PW BOCS Set To Vote On Candland’s Conflict Of Interest Resolution”
much ado about nothing!!!!
So, you don’t have a problem with a supervisor voting to give $100K in taxpayer money to an organization where he or she also sits on the Board or his or her spouse sits on the Board?
:I simply think there are more important things to do rather than grandstanding one’s purity. Is this guy Candland Sheriff Leticq’s “boy” on the BOCS? I know very little about western county politics but this seems to be a way to slam Covington ever since he beat the right wing woman he beat in the last primary…………notwithstanding Candland’s saying there was nothing personal. Of course I have a problem with huge amts of money going to one’s favorite cause. Yet, the $100 thousand was blocked…………Corey’s $30,000 did stand even though it was almost subject to review by a special prosecutor. I still am concerned about doing away with those $100-$500 contributions to Little League and the like………….these are now done away with to keep the BOCS pure!!! How about Silber’s ongoing contributions to Corey………………thats ok……….right!!!! booooooooo
Ken, if this were a Democrat doing exactly the same thing and directing the criticism toward Republicans you would be there with your pitchfork held high and your torch lit brightly.
Of course this is a big deal. Transparency, ethics and avoiding conflicts of interest are always important, and something most members of our Board, of both Parties, need to learn more about.
Howard – YOU KNOW BETTER!! We already have state rules and regs covering the grandstanding!! n.b. the following:
2.2-3103. Prohibited conduct.
No officer or employee of a state or local governmental or advisory agency shall:
1. Solicit or accept money or other thing of value for services performed within the scope of his official duties, except the compensation, expenses or other remuneration paid by the agency of which he is an officer or employee. This prohibition shall not apply to the acceptance of special benefits that may be authorized by law;
2. Offer or accept any money or other thing of value for or in consideration of obtaining employment, appointment, or promotion of any person with any governmental or advisory agency;
3. Offer or accept any money or other thing of value for or in consideration of the use of his public position to obtain a contract for any person or business with any governmental or advisory agency;
4. Use for his own economic benefit or that of another party confidential information that he has acquired by reason of his public position and which is not available to the public;
5. Accept any money, loan, gift, favor, service, or business or professional opportunity that reasonably tends to influence him in the performance of his official duties. This subdivision shall not apply to any political contribution actually used for political campaign or constituent service purposes and reported as required by Chapter 9.3 (§ 24.2-945 et seq.) of Title 24.2;
6. Accept any business or professional opportunity when he knows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the opportunity is being afforded him to influence him in the performance of his official duties;
7. Accept any honoraria for any appearance, speech, or article in which the officer or employee provides expertise or opinions related to the performance of his official duties. The term “honoraria” shall not include any payment for or reimbursement to such person for his actual travel, lodging, or subsistence expenses incurred in connection with such appearance, speech, or article or in the alternative a payment of money or anything of value not in excess of the per diem deduction allowable under § 162 of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended from time to time. The prohibition in this subdivision shall apply only to the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Governor’s Secretaries, and heads of departments of state government;
8. Accept a gift from a person who has interests that may be substantially affected by the performance of the officer’s or employee’s official duties under circumstances where the timing and nature of the gift would cause a reasonable person to question the officer’s or employee’s impartiality in the matter affecting the donor. Violations of this subdivision shall not be subject to criminal law penalties; or
9. Accept gifts from sources on a basis so frequent as to raise an appearance of the use of his public office for private gain. Violations of this subdivision shall not be subject to criminal law penalties.
(1987, Sp. Sess., c. 1, § 2.1-639.4; 1994, cc. 663, 815, 851; 2001, c. 844; 2006, cc. 787, 892.)
——————————————————————————–
prev | next | new search | table of contents | home
Howard – the Virginia Code is clear about conflicts of interest. We dont need another grandstanding move to place a meaningless layer onto local govt.
Something isn’t working. I hope you are not going to argue that conflicts of interest are not a problem on the PWC board. You’ll be about the only person in the County except Stewart, Peacor and their cronies trying to make that argument.
If not what Candland is doing as a starter to cleaning up this mess, then what? Or are you perhaps a closet Corey Stewart supporter?
I like Corey personally; however, i am his mortalist enemy politically!!! My point is, ENFORCE the laws and regs that are on the books; not superimpose another set of regs on top of the others……..and perhaps grab a few noble headlines in the process..Candland will have a bigger grandstand than the new stadium before he is done with all of his moralistic regs. All of the Board members have to go along with them lest they be consider immoral!!!
Ken, specifically to which laws and regulations are you referring? Who is going to enforce them? Paul Ebert? Good luck with that.
Could it be that you don’t like the idea that the Republicans have a young, new leader who is doing what’s right and gaining public approval, while the Democrats are mostly stuck with a much of old far** who aren’t inspiring anyone?
Yes Howard, Virginia’s Conflict of Interest Act (Section 2.2-3103 ff) covers all of the materail in Candland’s “resolution”; and yes, I am disappointed that the BOCS will lie down and obey this new resolution lest they be considered the bad guys. Now, if Candland could come up with something original and meaningful, that would be different. But no, this is simply grandstanding and he is getting away with it…………..his Sheriff………….Greg Latieq – is obviously a slick pol who is leading this act………………yes….much ado about nothing. If you have a problem with Ebert, what changes with this resolution……………NADA……..
Ken – go back and reread Greg’s discussion on that, and Duecaster’s comments. Whatever we’ve got isn’t working.
Do you argue that the board does not have a conflict of interest problem?
I agree that the BOCS has been sloppy at times with discretionary funds. One case was stopped (Covington) and one wasnt (Corey). There were two speakers at the hearing on this matter – Earnie Porta and the gentleman who used to run the Hylton Corp……………both said the BOCS needed to study te matter and come up with a reasoned policy……..and instead, the BOCS approved the resolution and hence…no more helping little leagues and scout troops and Holly Acres, library wi-fis and immediate school needs……….helping for last minute funds for proms etc……..first, a reasoned policy would insist that any funds used would be attributed loud and clear to the BOCS and not the individual supervisor…………..so, instead they went from one extreme to another……..dumb policy making………thanks Sherriff Greg
Good, so we’ve established there is a conflict of interest problem. You agree with 99.9% of everyone else in the County.
Now, what’s your solution? What we have isn’t working. The state laws aren’t working. Can you come up with something better than did the one supervisor who is trying to deal with the problem?
I believe more diligence by the Supervisors in following existing laws and regs. As an aside, Candland does ask a lot of intelligent questions on many issues and that is obviously a good thing.
[...] on to the shameful actions exhibited by 7 of the 8 BOCS members. As we’ve previously written, Candland introduced a resolution dealing with how BOCS members should deal with conflicts of [...]
Comments are closed.