REAL ADVOCATE PREVAILS IN FOIA COURT ACTION

Loudoun county supervisor Eugene Delgaudio’s former staff aide, Donna Mateer, provided county staff with an eight-page written statement in March of this year, detailing the misconduct of her then-boss. Real Advocate sought that statement under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, but the county government refused to release it. Today, following a hearing in Loudoun County General District Court, the county has finally produced that document.

I have never worked for someone who I feel is so full of hate and evil.

In her statement, Delgaudio’s former aide describes chronic abusive treatment, pressure to arrange fund-raising meetings above all other office activities, illegal questioning during her hiring interview, and workplace exploitation of her status as a single mother. She also reports bizarre and childish conduct by Mr. Delgaudio, such as mocking ethnic Americans for their speech, forbidding her to answer constituent phone calls, and berating her with obscene language.

It was then, that I finally started to cry.

In addition to the eight-page document, Real Advocate has obtained the full exchange between Commonwealth’s Attorney James Plowman and Commonwealth’s Attorney Theophani Stamos (to whom Plowman referred the statement when asked by county attorney Jack Roberts to review it). Both Commonwealth’s Attorneys clearly appear to have acted in good faith in their treatment of the material, but neither has seen any of the hundreds of pages of supporting material Donna Mateer personally copied (at her own expense) and gave to board chairman Scott York. Real Advocate has those documents and will publish relevant items after more study.

What the exchanges between CA Plowman and CA Stamos already show, however, is that Chairman York’s summary of CA Stamos’s review is innaccurate. York’s public statement was that, “the Arlington’s Commonwealth Attorney did not recommend pursuing any charges against Mr. Delgaudio.” In fact, what the exchange between prosecutors reveals is that CA Stamos indicated that more evidence would be necessary to continue the review of the matter, potentially even convening a special grand jury to hear from witnesses. Neither Plowman nor Stamos knew, when Stamos was asking for more evidence, that Chairman York was in possession of stacks of additional papers provided by Mateer.

Real Advocate is continuing its pursuit of the complete record and will provide what information it obtains to the public via the press and via this Web site.

UPDATE: An alternate format for the complaint document is here.

Posted in Eugene Delgaudio, FOIA Action, Loudoun County
14 comments on “REAL ADVOCATE PREVAILS IN FOIA COURT ACTION
  1. Joe Maloney says:

    Excellent work!

  2. Eric the 1/2Troll says:

    What’s with the “Real Advocate has those documents and will publish relevant items after more study”? I 100% applaude what you are doing here but this is bullcrap. Release all the documents to the public now, else you are cherrypicking just like York et al did.

  3. Way to go – they totally caved as they knew they had to. If it wasn’t for the FOIA they would still be peddling the lie that the Arlington CA had cleared Delgaudio. Once again the sunlight sends the cockroaches scurrying.

  4. Ross Patterson says:

    Eric – give them a break, OK? Cases like this are often responded to with paper documents, in part to make it harder to use them, and someone’s got to put the time in to turn “hundreds of pages of supporting material” into something we can all look at.

  5. Thank you, Ross. I don’t know why any of this would be printed on paper unless it was to make it harder. It can’t be because it costs less.

  6. Comm says:

    Thank you everybody for the terrific response! We will be getting documents up on the site after we scan and categorize them. The docs show a picture of Eugene that everyone should see.

  7. Eric the half a troll says:

    Ross, I could .pdf a couple hundred pages of documents in about two hours. The hardest part would be staple removal. If this is about government transparency, their case would be best served by a document dump rather than days of document “organization” first. Plus if there is anything in the documents, the fastest way to cull through it would be through the use of the public. Anything damning will come out immediately and anything supportive of Eugene can not be hidden anyway. Why the delay?

  8. Eric the half a troll says:

    If you get me the documents, I will scan them in via automatic feed scanner tomorrow. I would be happy to do so. I will drop them on a thumb drive for you and you can post them. You have my email. Drop me a line and I will coordinate with you.

  9. Eric the 1/2Troll says:

    Are those documents available yet?

    • Comm says:

      Eric, those are the documents we received from Donna Mateer. We have asked for copies of those same documents in the FOIA that Jack Roberts refuses to release to us.

      It is the policy of RAPAC not to publish anything that we do not receive through FOIA, and we are going to court to get those documents released.

      In the meantime, we are scanning in the documents we received outside of FOIA so that when those documents are released to us, we can post relevant items quickly.

  10. Eric the half a troll says:

    You realize that making the documents public will eliminate any claim of privilege made by Loudoun County don’t you? All you would need is Donna’s permission. Btw, who will be making the determination of what is relevant and worthy of public release/consumption?

  11. Eric, please read our publication policy under Mission. There are good reasons for not doing what you suggest that you may not have thought about.

  12. Eric the 1/2Troll says:

    David,

    I have read your mission and I have in these comments presented the case why not publishing all the documents you have puts you in the same questionable position, credibility-wise. as the 9-0 Republican BOS. Obviously you have every right NOT to publish something you do not wish to publish. At least you have abandoned the lame “I only have a flatbed scanner” excuse. You wish to selectively release data that only supports your stated goals of taking down (in this case) Delgaudio. I would rather actually like to find out what happened and see what other abuses of power (albeit not necessarily based on hate of any minorities) may have occured. You can rest assured that if I had access to the documents you have and I secured agreement from the original owner of those documents, I would do a dump (with the obvious disclaimer that this may not represent the ENTIRE record) and let the chips fall where they may. I am confident of one thing “sunshine is the best disinfectant”.

Leave a Reply

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

*

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>