Eugene Delgaudio’s Identity Crisis

A chastened Supervisor E. Delgaudio listening to the public demanding his censure (photo J. Flannery)

Sterling Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio lost his ever-present orange hat, his open smile, his false swagger and his law suit when he tried to prevent the Board of Supervisor from having a hearing last Wednesday on what Mr. Delgaudio did or did not do to abuse staff and misuse and mingle County resources with his gay-bashing hate group and his campaign fund-raising activities.

Mr. Delgaudio said he wanted to know before last Wednesday’s meeting what the Board’s specific charges were.

The Board listed five charges, with the help of Board Member, Mr. Shawn M. Williams, drawing principally upon the 8-page statement filed by Ms. Donna Mateer, a former staffer (submitted last March)(that Mr. Delgaudio has had ever since), and the recent critical grand jury report (June 24, 2013)(that didn’t indict but did plainly identify various kinds of official misconduct by Mr. Delgaudio).

Mr. Delgaudio wanted an opportunity to respond.

Chairman Scott York called the Board into a Committee of the Whole in public so that Mr. Delgaudio could.

When given the opportunity, Mr Delgaudio lost his voice.

Mr. Delgaudio carped, sniveled and complained that he needed more time.Mr. Delgaudio said his attorney had written a refutation of the grand jury report’s charges.  Ms. Volpe said, why wasn’t it submitted to the Board?  Mr. Delgaudio gave an unresponsive statement and that that it was on-line.  Mr. Matthew F. Letorneau went online during the hearing and found the statement that Mr. Delgaudio’s counsel issued and said it was no “refutation” as characterized by Mr. Delgaudio.  Mr. Letorneau nevertheless invited Mr. Delgaudio to read this statement into the record.  Mr. Delgaudio declined.

Chairman Scott York responded in the most direct fashion, saying,“Enough is enough.”

Before the formal hearing began, several members of the public urged the Board not to let Mr. Delgaudio bully them.

One of Mr. Delgaudio’s die-hard partisans, Greg Stone, suggested that the Board was missing “the clues,” how this was a “political vendetta,” and he directed the Board to get its “poop in a group” (sic), prompting an uncomfortable silence.

Patti Maslinoff, from Leesburg, told the Board she had come from a “medical procedure,” exhausted, because she wanted to tell the Board how important it is “to live in a County where the government maintains high standards of ethics and expects our public officials to devote themselves to the public good and not to their private interests.”

Matthew Gallelli, from the Blue Ridge District, sang a country song for his two minutes, based on a Bonnie Raitti original, “Yes baby, I’ve been fund raisin’, got some donations from unknown friends,” finishing his performance with the phrase, “It takes a whole lotta money, darling, to make believe that I’m somebody else.”

Mr. Delgaudio has surely been “making believe” he was “somebody else,” manipulating his public trust to serve his private interests.

Six members of the Board rightly concluded this was no partisan problem, and they reviewed in some detail Mr. Delgaudio’s failures as a public servant.  Mr. Ken Reid asked Mr. Delgaudio why he’d never showed any contrition. Mr. Delgaudio couldn’t find his voice.  Mr. Ralph Buona said he was tired of seeing newspapers with Mr. Delgaudio’s name and picture on the front page detailing his misconduct while Mr. Buona was working so hard to do right by the County.  Several members said about the same thing.

Two members, Gerry Higgins and Janet Clarke, made efforts to delay the proceedings, even to obstruct the discipline that the Board ultimately imposed on Mr. Delgaudio.

In the end, the Board said in quite unambiguous terms that Mr. Delgaudio should be censured, lose his committee assignments, his staff aides, and budgetary control except for modest expenses.  And that’s what the Board did, with Mr Higgins and Ms. Clarke, the odd persons out on the final vote to take away Mr. Delgaudio’s budget control, notwithstanding the findings of the grand jury he had misapplied the County’s funds..

Chairman York said the Board afforded Mr. Delgaudio the time to respond, and he refused to speak, threatening the Board instead, and serving subpoenas on the Board members.

Mr. York told Mr. Delgaudio he had crossed the ethical line, and had only himself to blame for the discipline he received.

What we can expect next is the citizens of Sterling to file their petition with the Loudoun County Circuit Court to remove Mr. Delgaudio from office.

28 thoughts on “Eugene Delgaudio’s Identity Crisis

  1. Epluribusunum

    I wonder what the supervisors (whose exasperation and disgust with Delgaudio came across so clearly that I feel kind of sorry for them) are thinking now that they’re being frontally attacked and called names by the party that selected them to be candidates. They had to have seen from attending LCRC meetings that Eugene is treated like an odd sort of mascot and de-facto executive committee member by the leadership. Did they imagine that there would be a sudden change in this behavior once the truth about him came out publicly? Did they think that the irrational would magically become rational in response to real world events?

    Then there’s this, from the WaPo article about the Monday night meeting: “A formal resolution, requesting that the board reconsider its actions against Delgaudio and offer him a chance to defend himself, was proposed at the meeting but did not come up for a vote; the committee was about a dozen members short of the number needed to vote on a resolution, according to officials.” No quorum, really? On such an important night for demonstrating partisan loyalty? I’m sure there’s some perfectly innocent reason that a number of members didn’t show up, lol. Anyone care to share?

    The dissembling continues. Not only was Eugene given unlimited time to “defend himself,” he was explicitly invited to read his attorney’s statement into the record – and declined. (I missed the part where Letourneau found it online – love it!) So we get this bit of puffery from the attorney: “‘I am disappointed the Board voted not to allow me the opportunity to present Supervisor Delgaudio’s defense to the charges made by Chairman York,’ King said in a statement Monday.” The poor man.

    I’ve been hearing for quite some time that none of his boardmates can stand “UGeen” and have been dying to do something about him. Obviously they knew at least some of what was going on up on the 5th floor. I suppose they were waiting and hoping for an indictment so that the unpleasant task would be done for them, but that was not to be.

  2. John P. Flannery

    I didn’t sense any reservation in the arguments or resolve of those members who thought to censure Supervisor Delgaudio and cut his budget; the arguments they made against a process that could not compel testimony or make it under oath was also persuasive, and more likely, as they feared, to become a circus; indeed, Chairman York suggested the party should re-consider its relationship with Mr. Delgaudio as a candidate, allowing as how that was up to them. Several Board members said they were upset that, on the one hand, Delgaudio had helped them and, on the other hand, dishonored the Board and the County. They came down on the side of what their oath required, to police their own. Except for the two Western supervisors, the statements were strong and well-considered and about good government, no matter the party affiliation. I think the Board’s conduct of its inquiry bought us credibility as a County that Delgaudio had sorely compromised. The Post editorial was spot on afterwards that this was about time – to rid us of this stain on the body politic. I would hope and expect a Democratic Board would do the same if a Democrat had been found to have been self-dealing and engaged in misconduct. Robust disagreement is one thing. Misconduct is quite another.

  3. Epluribusunum

    No, neither did I. I don’t doubt the authenticity of their anger. But I wonder how surprised they are that the leadership of their party still hasn’t come to the conclusion that enough is enough. At what point would his behavior be too egregious even for them? Never?

  4. Elder Berry

    They suddenly can’t stand Eugene. Nothing he is doing now is any different that what he has been doing all along when plenty of them were quite happy to stand alongside him and run alongside him.

    The only reason they are turning against him now is that the publicity has gotten so bad that they’re afraid it is rubbing off on them. That was not any ethical outrage you saw, that was personal venom.

    YOU LIE DOWN WITH PIGS, YOU COME UP SMELLING. This is a surprise to them suddenly? Delgaudio’s stench has been around for years, anyone not a political newbie in Loudoun knows all about it, and the Tulloch board actually loved having him up there on the dias and gave him free rein.

    The LCRC too is complicit in whatever Eugene does. He’s their creature. They’ve sponsored him and fostered him and put him up under their banner.

  5. Barbara Munsey

    John, a majority D board had the opportunity to police their own on more than one occasion under the last board, but the egregious example given a pass was the Potomac supervisor.

    Not only did she cycle through aides through personal abuse and demands that they perform personal services for her, she put forward county action and used the products gained through hiring the consultants to fulfill those actions for personal gain.

    Some of the folks screaming loudest for action here were her most staunch defenders, including when a profoundly stupid redistricting plan was drawn and approved for that woman, and one other who lost.

    I too would hope that local Ds/progs would step up to the plate when necessary rather than just agitate piously when the pendulum is on the other foot, but I won’t hold my breath waiting for it– :D

  6. John Flannery

    If you want to change gerrymandering then don’t let the elected politicians draw their own lines, any of them. Of course, whoever is in draws lines they think will keep them in. Term limits for elected officials and staff would help in this regard. Independent commissions might help. If you want any political body to police itself consistently, then you need a process that doesn’t change from administration to administration, and whomever conducts the investigation must have subpoena power and the authority to administer oaths, and must be separately funded. You might have been proven right if there was such machinery in the past. It would be a good idea to implement it for the future. But you’re more likely, Barbara, to vote for McCauliffe.

  7. John Flannery

    This is what the machinery looks like that scrutinizes possible and actual misconduct by members of congress – both dems and republicans – it ay not be immune to politics but it’s a far sight better than nothing – http://politi.co/19mylQq .

  8. Elder Berry

    Barbara Munsey, there was no grand jury investigating the Potomac supervisor in question. Was the CA a Democrat?

    Sweet dreams.

  9. Barbara Munsey

    elderberry, perhaps there should have been? Perhaps one of the brave honorable folks who demanded action this time should have at the very least called for action when the “county energy strategy” went on the road to Delaware as a private venture even though the county had paid for the report (from the connected consultant), and Ms. McG gave that memorable speech which included “who wants to make a lot of money?”–it’s archived, you should look it up.

    As I recall, all that happened then was a huffy circling of wagons, with the same projectional rants at anyone who dared to point out the problem. But, she was serving as a D, and she was SO very green, so, it’s all good, right? The ends being so much more significant than any means?

  10. Elder Berry

    Why didn’t Mr. Delagudio or any concerned private citizen like you refer it to the CA then if it was referable, Barbara Munsey?

    As our esteemed current governor and the Republican candidate for governor have shown, there is (so far) a difference between what we personally might rather people did not do because it looks bad and things that are truly not deserving of continuing in office. Of course, time may yet yield more action regarding Mr. Delgaudio, as well as Mr. McDonnell and Mr. Cuccinelli.

    If more was going to happen on the matter you dredge up, it would have happened by now.

    Goodnight.

  11. Barbara Munsey

    elderberry, why didn’t the D majority who so endlessly stroked themselves on having an ethics pledge refer it?

    Why, because it was not so much a vehicle for producing ethics as it was for self-stroking (and flagellating others) on the concept.

    This board acted without need of the pledge.

    And yet those who still congratulate the previous board on having one they never used on McG still whine for a pledge.

    More “me and not thee”, but that’s not news.

    Good day, if that’s possible for you.

  12. Pariahdog

    Regarding the county energy strategy, the 2011 BoS wanted to cut the county program but our progressive allies at SustainableLoudoun presented the numbers, and the all-Republican BoS determined that, indeed, sustainability does return “a lot of money” and they retained the program.

  13. Epluribusunum

    Since we can safely rule out political favoritism in this case, the board must have retained the energy strategy because it made fiscal sense. The numbers are what they are, and yes, vendors who provide sustainable products do stand to make a lot of money. Isn’t that a win-win for the county?

    I would think that the matter of abusing aides is much more valid – but, as we saw in the discussion of revising the aide policy, they don’t enjoy any legal employment protections. It’s not a matter that, by itself, would go before a Grand Jury.

  14. Barbara Munsey

    The matter that perhaps should have gone were the numerous road trips hawking tax-funded county products for personal benefits.

    But again, as I said, she was serving as a D, and is Green, so, yay! (and it is HATEFUL to oppose her in any way, Because Sustainable. Got it, thanks.)

  15. Barbara Munsey

    This provides both the entire and short form of her huckstering, which is where the famous “who wants to make a lot of money” came from. As you will see, it has nothing to do with businesses profiting by adopting good green practice, but individuals profiting from huckstering the greeen government gravy train.

    It also details her now-you-see-it/now-you-don’t directorships of groups, and the history of the project she pushed and then benefitted from.

    Rock on, as slllooooooooooooowwwwwwwwllllly as you feel is beneficial.

  16. Pariahdog

    Barbara,

    I removed the link to that disgusting Loudoun blog.

    If you continue to repeat the lie that opposing a particular policy position is HATEFUL, I will put you into the troll pit of moderation. Perhaps I should have done it long ago.

  17. Epluribusunum

    As I recall, back when the astroturf “green” LEC still existed, Barbara repeated the falsehood that Sustainable Loudoun was just some sort of resurrection of another group. So I’m not terribly confident in any “analysis” of local environmental orgs and their leadership that comes from a source like that with her recommendation. She probably helped write that post.

    Barbara, you could always start your own blog.

  18. Barbara Munsey

    Guys, LEC organized as a 501(c)4, which meant they were upfront about political advocacy (unlike many local groups that hide under (c)3 class for the perk of the tax deduction).

    Yes, Sustainable Loudoun had been through at least two iterations before you moved in (after me), with the same core group in each incarnation.

    The group I was on about was the bogus clean streams group, a PEC-intern summer project, with county employees hawking petitions through it. Your old thread “Astroturf” provides the links on that one.

    I only posted the link because the post provides a lot of information (with proof, most notably the videos) that you’d apparently rather not have stand in contrast to your opinions. So be it, your blog.

    Which, I note, you often link from the Patch and other sites/blogs–looking for more eyeballs? ;)

    (p.s.–since when are opinions LIES? Objective v. subjective strikes again—selectively)

  19. Pariahdog

    The use of a rhetorical device like this is a lie in it’s contextualization and in the projection of beliefs and motivations. It is not an opinion. It is trollish behavior. If you don’t recognize that, we’re back to “mental defect.”

    “But again, as I said, she was serving as a D, and is Green, so, yay! (and it is HATEFUL to oppose her in any way, Because Sustainable. Got it, thanks.)”

  20. Epluribusunum

    Here, from yesterday’s headlines, is an example of exactly the same kind of lie Barbara habitually engages in: Rearranging others’ words, or fabricating her very own statements which she then attributes to others, in order to alter the meaning to what she wishes it to be. Asserting that a post says something other than what its author said is simply lying. Fox News did not express an “opinion” when it reported a fabricated statement attributed to Jay Carney. It wasn’t their “opinion” that Carney called Benghazi a “phony attack.” It was a lie. You can be confident that we will call things what they are here.

  21. Barbara Munsey

    Guys, see quote re “the never-ending search for complexity where it neither exists nor belongs”; if you need to engage in retroactive rhetorical backflips to re-explain, redefine etc, then by all means do so. Project away at will.

    It IS your blog, and you should opine as you wish here.

    And that still will not make your opinions, redefinitions, projections, and endlessly parsed re-explanations (along with the ad hominems) acknowledged FACT anywhere beyond the confines of the virtual world you control here.

  22. Epluribusunum

    Yes, we do administer this blog. If you started your own blog, you could link to any creepy site you like. If you comment here, and you make misrepresentations, they will be pointed out and corrected. Unless they’re too dumb to bother with.

  23. Barbara Munsey

    When did that site become “creepy”? Seriously, I’m curious. I understand that you are unlikely to agree with probably the bulk of those posting there, but the post I linked was good research by JoeB, whom I thought enjoyed at the very least mutual respect with you.

    I find your complaint of “misrepresentation” funny, in that my constant argument with you is your insistence on rewriting/reimaging/redefining the words of others to fit your preferred mold and meanings.

    But again, your blog.

    Thank you for allowing me to comment, and I have to ask, especially in light of elderberry’s highschoolish “we” ignore, when so few comment here in spite of the many links you post on local sites to new posts when you feel it pertinent, AND if you are on record as seeking “dialogue”, whether you really are interested in agreement, and agreement only? So it would seem (note: “seem”).

  24. Elder Berry

    It was a CIA safe house. Why is there any surprise that there were CIA operatives on the ground?

    “the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret”

    It’s the CIA.There was presumably a covert operation in Libya. Is that a surprise? Is it a surprise that they want to keep covert activities secret from CNN? Do you think they want the Republicans to pull another “out the covert operatives” caper like they did with Valerie Plame?

    Seriously. If it really was that the US ambassador got killed because of an attack on a CIA operation, how is that a “scandal”?

  25. Barbara Munsey

    I understand, elderberry–were we secretly funnelling arms to the Syrian rebels, or is that another conspiracy? (not the “vast right wing” one, but no-doubt similar depending on who’s saying it)

    Gee, this administration picked so very well during “Arab Spring”, didn’t they? And who exactly are the greater good guys in Syria? But this is nothing like Iran/Contra, so at least there’s that.

    Anyway, we (through Congress) have been told by a Much Better “what difference does it make?”, so I see you’ve adopted the official position.

    Tell me, I understand that that particular Much Better is allowed to play Tammy Wynette and her aide is not, because she married a more powerful person, but where’s the War on Women during all of that current mess in D-land?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


8 + = seventeen

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>