BoS preparing to throw Delgaudio overboard?

Update (Jan. 3): Mr. Delgaudio’s attorney has released a statement purporting to explain the board’s 8-0-1 (Clarke absent) vote to strip him of his committee appointments. King asserts that Delgaudio “voted for the committee assignments to avoid embroiling the entire Board in another controversy.” In light of Mr. Delgaudio’s conduct since taking office in 1999, this statement should cause us all to collapse upon the floor in a great heaving orgy of mirth (don’t worry, Barbara! We’re fine!). King also feels it’s “unfortunate” that the Chairman used the board’s regular Rules of Procedures in their customary fashion for making appointments in a new term, and would prefer that the board instead “pass a resolution, establish a committee, conduct an investigation and, if necessary, hold a hearing,” which wouldn’t embroil the entire board in another controversy at all.

Two observations: One, an internal investigation and hearing is what was suspended when evidence of criminal misconduct was “discovered” by York in the documents he had been holding in secret since March, and the investigation was turned over to the appropriate law enforcement agency. Two, King’s statement is carefully worded to hold just the Chairman responsible for the vote, as if the other supervisors couldn’t have withheld their approval. Does this mean we won’t be seeing any more hugs?

BoS preparing to throw Delgaudio overboard?

That’s one interpretation of today’s news, that the reorganization of the Board of Supervisors for 2013 has left the suddenly and curiously silent Mr. Delgaudio with no, count them, zero committee appointments. Now is that any way to treat a comrade you like and respect? Real Advocate speculates:

Perhaps the spectacle of his combative participation in the November 20 Finance, Government Services and Operations Committee meeting made everyone a bit uncomfortable. During that meeting, Delgaudio loudly objected to proposed changes to the board’s policy prohibiting the use of county aides in their Supervisor’s campaign or private business, the very activities for which he is being investigated.

Very loudly, as is his habit when trying to get attention. If you’ve never witnessed his voice rising in contrived petulant outrage, you’re really missing out. Here, he’s responding to a proposed revision that Supervisor Buona characterizes as “standard, and mirrors what I’ve seen in many other HR policies.” I’m afraid the transcript doesn’t really do this justice:

“For me, it would be unconstitutional to restrict anybody’s paid services outside my office, and including under the First Amendment and in any other categories. Clarifying whether or not you can get a job, being paid by a campaign, whether it’s my campaign or some other campaign…because I have a budget of one hundred thousand dollars does not limit my staff from going out and getting paid more money, and as far as limiting them working at a private company, if they’re working for me, ladies and gentlemen, I’ve been elected here four times, and Chairman York, if you have a budget like that and one of your aides should go to work for you at your company, frankly I would trust you, I would respect your judgment and I would consider that to be additional compensation for that person and not necessarily the undermining of your office just because your aide gets more money…[Nothing wrong with] paying your staff more money to work for you in other venues…How is it, Mr. Chairman, that this political appointee that we have, which we appoint, and are essentially temporary positions, how is that very sensitive political position, that can’t have any standards of the [Fair Labor Standards Act] law, that we consider their activity to be non-political?”

One did not get the impression, watching this, that Mr. Delgaudio’s board colleagues actually do like or respect him much. In fact, I would describe their demeanor for the most part as barely concealed exasperation. They just seemed…tired.

Or alternatively, perhaps Mr. Delgaudio’s colleagues have enough personal knowledge of his activities and the investigation into them that they wish to prepare for his removal from the board entirely.

And, one suspects, champagne (or an appropriate alternative beverage) all around once he’s gone.

Delgaudio knows this. He is, of course, leveraging his growing legal troubles to further defraud his simpletons (“Dear Joe, I’ve never felt so alone in the fight for the Family…It seems like everyone is turning against me..”), but when’s the last time you saw him quoted in a local newspaper? You just know that reporters are calling, but he’s not talking. To be blunt, he’s scared. Maybe for the first time in his life. For those who have additional evidence to share with investigators, but don’t know yet whether it’s more prudent to tell what you know, or to stay quiet and see what happens, that’s understandable. But understand that this is a vote of no confidence by his colleagues. This is significant.

4 thoughts on “BoS preparing to throw Delgaudio overboard?

  1. Greta

    http://ashburn.patch.com/articles/delgaudio-stripped-of-committee-assignments

    Ashburn Patch is reporting a statement from Delgaudio’s lawyer also. “King explained that Delgaudio did not object to the changes because he did not want to the controversy on the dais.”

    “He voted for the committee assignments to avoid embroiling the entire Board in another controversy”

    When did Delgaudio ever want to avoid embroiling the board in controversy…LOL..but his lawyer also says he wants the board to hold an investigation and a hearing so he can defend himself. Didn’t York already cancel a board investigation because its now a real investigation?

  2. Greta

    Thanks for the update! I don’t know if you care, but the guys at Too Conservative are upset that you “reproduced” the statement from Charlie King. I don’t get why they’re so concerned about this blog and that this blog is “boycotting” them. Most of them say they want Delgaudio gone too, so wth?

  3. Epluribusunum Post author

    Good grief, how silly is that? How would it even be possible for a blog to boycott another blog? The pleas for attention seem a little desperate.

    I would expect that Mr. King would want his statement to get as wide a circulation as possible. If not, if he only wanted it to appear before certain audiences, that would raise a whole host of issues.

    You’re correct, the board had already initiated the process of an internal investigation, a process that was extremely suspect after York and apparently Clarke and some other unnamed person kept secret a big pile of documents they had been given (at York’s request) by Delgaudio’s former aide Donna Mateer. That process was ended by a specific trigger clause in the contract the county entered into with the investigative firm, that said if they discovered any evidence of criminal activity they were to immediately suspend their investigation and turn it over to appropriate law enforcement officials, which is exactly what happened.

    I don’t even know what to say about Delgaudio’s attorney seemingly pretending none of that happened. He’ll have a chance to defend himself from the criminal charges if there’s an indictment, that’s why we have courts. And if there isn’t an indictment he’ll have a chance to defend himself against the ethical charges. Heaven forbid Mr. Delgaudio is denied any opportunity to show everyone what a blowhard he is. 8-)

  4. Pingback: No more endearing hugs. Darn. – Loudoun Progress

Comments are closed.