Showing posts with label Violations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Violations. Show all posts

Monday, April 20, 2015

Gloucester, Virginia Local Government Allows Personal Use of Government Vehicles In Violation of State Codes?

§ 2.2-1179. Use of vehicles for commuting.
No passenger-type vehicle purchased or leased with public funds shall be used to commute between an employee's home and official work station without the prior written approval of the agency head and, in the case of vehicles assigned to the centralized fleet, the DirectorThe Director shall establish guidance documents governing such use of vehicles and shall ensure that costs associated with such use shall be recovered from employees. Employees who do not report to an official work station shall not be required to pay for travel between their homes and field sites. Guidance documents established by the Director and recovery of costs shall not apply to use of vehicles by law-enforcement officers. By executive order of the Governor, such guidance documents may extend to all motor vehicles of any type owned by the Commonwealth, or such of them as the Governor may designate.
(1989, c. 479, § 33.1-406; 2001, cc. 815842, § 2.1-548.07; 2013, c. 485.)

§ 2.2-1178. Use of passenger-type vehicles on an assigned basis.
A. Passenger-type vehicles assigned to the centralized fleet may be assigned to persons performing state duties only if deemed necessary by the head of the agency or institution requesting such vehicle and approved in writing by the Director. Request for such vehicle shall be made in writing on forms prepared by the Department of General Services by the head of the agency or institution explaining in detail the purpose of or reason for such assignment.
B. Assignments shall be approved by the Director only on the basis of one of the following criteria:
1. The vehicle shall be driven not less than the annual usage standard. The Director shall promulgate a minimum mileage standard taking into account best value, industry standard practices, and the use of alternative transportation methods;
2. The vehicle shall be used by an employee whose duties are routinely related to public safety or response to life-threatening situations:
a. A law-enforcement officer as defined in § 9.1-101, with general or limited police powers;
b. An employee whose job duties require the constant use or continuous availability of specialized equipment directly related to their routine functions; or
c. An employee on 24-hour call who must respond to emergencies on a regular or continuing basis, and emergency response is normally to a location other than the employee's official work station; or
3. The vehicle shall be used for essential travel related to the transportation of clients or wards of the Commonwealth on a routine basis, or for essential administrative functions of the agency for which it is demonstrated that use of a temporary assignment or personal mileage reimbursement is neither feasible nor economical.
C. No assignment shall be for a period exceeding two years except upon review by the Director as to the continued need for the assignment.
D. The use of such vehicle shall be limited to official state business.
(1989, c. 479, § 33.1-405; 2001, cc. 815842, § 2.1-548.06; 2011, c. 611.)

Verses Gloucester County Human Resources Information:

Use of County Vehicles and Equipment 620.1 Introduction The operation of vehicles is necessary in conducting the day-to-day business of the County. This use of vehicles represents one of the greatest risks facing the County. Recognizing this, it is imperative that the County take reasonable steps to control the use of County and privately owned vehicles while performing County business. This policy sets forth the guidelines and policies governing the operation of vehicles used in the performance of official County business. Department and agency heads are responsible for implementation and enforcement of this policy for all vehicles and drivers assigned to their department.

 620.2 Applicability and Definition This policy applies to all County vehicles as defined herein and to all employees who routinely or occasionally drive a County vehicle. The term County vehicle as used in this policy is defined as (1) any County owned, leased or rented vehicle, including special-use vehicles such as construction and excavation equipment designed to operate primarily offroad but driven on public roads to a job site, and (2) privately owned vehicles when used in the performance of official County duties. (Sheriff’s Department and Department of Social Services vehicles and employees are covered by their respective operating policies.)

 620.3 Authorized Use The following examples are an attempt to cover most circumstances or conditions of authorized use and should not be considered all inclusive:

 A. Official Use - County vehicles are authorized “For Official Use Only.” Such vehicles are to be utilized to perform the functions and to conduct the operations and programs of the Department or Agency which is using the vehicle. County vehicles may be utilized both within and outside of the County for official use. 

B. Transport of Unofficial Parties – When such official use includes the transport of unofficial parties, that is parties not directly related to County business, the County Administrator must first approve such transport. 

C. Use of Vehicles by other Public Entities - Employees of other public entities may operate County vehicles under the specific approval of the department head as long as such operation is essential in conducting County business. Department heads granting permission for non-County employees to operate County vehicles are responsible for ensuring that the driver is properly licensed, trained and qualified to operate the vehicle. 

D. Personal Use - County vehicles may not be utilized for personal purposes. Exceptions include those employees who, while conducting County business, are away from their normal place of work at mealtime and those employees with an assigned  vehicle where such vehicle is the only practical mode of transportation available at mealtime. Employees whose duties require them to be away from a County office building during the day may briefly stop at a commercial establishment located along their work required travel route to use a restroom or purchase a refreshment. Department and Agency Heads are charged with reviewing with staff appropriate and de minimis usage identified herein. 

E. Take Home –In order to meet the business needs of the County, the County Administrator may authorize an employee to take a County vehicle home. County vehicles taken home overnight shall be locked and secured in the responsible employee's driveway or other designated parking space which is in close proximity to the employee’s residence. It is the intent of the County to limit the use of take home vehicles to the greatest extent practicable and to restrict this practice to those living within Gloucester County unless specifically stated otherwise. An employee in possession of a take home vehicle may stop briefly at a grocery store, pharmacy, etc. for reasons of personal convenience along the most direct route to or from their residence.  Such stops must be completed within one half hour of the beginning or end of the employee’s shift. The following examples are an attempt to illustrate the circumstances under which the County Administrator, or his/her designee, may authorize an employee to take a County vehicle home and should not be considered all inclusive: 

1. Employees who are subject to 24-hour call out, and due to the nature of their work, report directly to a jobsite away from a County facility in a County vehicle required by the nature of their response.

 2. Duty vehicles designed or equipped for high priority response where response time will be enhanced by allowing the vehicle to remain in custody of individual employee. Employees assigned to duty vehicles which are taken home must be available to respond upon request on a 24-hour basis any time the employee has custody of the vehicle. 

3. To prepare for a post-disaster response in order to plan an effective and efficient recovery. 

4. When travel from the employee's home, either within or outside of Gloucester County, to a destination for official County business is the most direct and/or closest route, (for example, early morning travel to a conference).

 620.4 Control and Use of Vehicles The County Administrator, department and agency heads shall carefully monitor and take necessary action to preclude operations that are contrary to the policies and procedures herein. Gloucester County Administrative Policy Gloucester, Virginia Section:

 620 Page: Page 3 of 10 Supersedes: N/A Effective Date: November 1, 2014 Title: 

Use of County Vehicles and Equipment Authorized By: County Administrator The following examples are an attempt to cover most circumstances or conditions of use and should not be considered all inclusive: A. Vehicle Identification - All service vehicles utilized by County departments will be identified with the official logo, departmental designation, and color scheme as designated by the County Administrator. 

B. Proper Licensing - Employees and authorized drivers must have a valid vehicle operator’s or commercial driver’s license in their possession at all times while operating a County vehicle. 

C. Qualified Operator – A qualified operator (driver) must be positioned at the vehicle's controls any time it is running unless otherwise approved by the manufacturer. No vehicle shall be left unattended without first stopping the motor, locking the ignition, removing the key and locking the doors or otherwise securing the vehicle to prevent theft, vandalism, and unintentional movement. 

D. Seatbelts - All drivers of County vehicles and all passengers therein shall properly use seat belts (if the vehicle is equipped with seat belts). Employees are prohibited from removing, deactivating, modifying or otherwise defeating any occupant restraint system installed by the manufacturer unless approved or instructed by the manufacturer. 

E. Motor Vehicle Laws - Employees shall obey all City/County, State and Federal laws while operating County vehicles and any time personal vehicles are used on official County business. Drivers should practice “defensive driving” and anticipate and observe the actions of other drivers and control their own vehicle in such a manner so as to avoid an accident involvement. 

F. Prohibition of Alcohol and Illegal Substances - It is prohibited for County vehicles to be utilized if the driver is impaired by, or under the influence of alcohol, intoxicants, drugs, or illegal substances. The possession or consumption of alcohol, intoxicants, or illegal drugs while operating a County vehicle is also prohibited. 

G. Smoking - Smoking and/or the use of tobacco products is not permitted in County vehicles. 

H. Mobile Communication Devices – Drivers of County vehicles should refrain from operating cellular telephones or other electronic devices that may cause driver distraction while operating a County vehicle. Drivers shall make every attempt to properly park their vehicle prior to using such devices. Drivers must adhere to Virginia laws and jurisdictional laws while traveling out of the State. 

I. Rendering Assistance - County vehicles may not be used to pull or push any other vehicle unless the vehicle is equipped to do so and the driver has been properly Gloucester County Administrative Policy Gloucester, Virginia Section: 620 Page: Page 4 of 10 Supersedes: N/A Effective Date: November 1, 2014 Title: Use of County Vehicles and Equipment Authorized By: County Administrator trained. It is permissible to render assistance in case of emergencies and to transport unofficial parties in such cases. 

J. Passengers – No person shall be allowed to ride on running boards, fenders, hoods, tailgates, beds, or other locations on a vehicle not designed or approved by the vehicle manufacturer for passenger seating. 

K. Cargo - When cargo, materials or tools are being transported, the driver is responsible for assuring that all items are properly secured to prevent them from shifting or falling from the vehicle or trailer. 

L. Backing up large vehicles – Drivers of large vehicles and/or construction equipment will avoid whenever possible, operating the vehicle in reverse to avoid the necessity of backing. Before entering the vehicle, the driver shall check the rear clearance of the vehicle. 

1. The driver shall not back the vehicle unless such movement can be made with reasonable safety and without interfering with other traffic. 

2. A spotter should be used whenever possible. Before and during backing movements, the driver and spotter will check blind zones for objects not visible in rear-view mirrors, watch both sides for adequate clearance, and limit speed to allow a full stop on short notice. 

M. Towing - A driver whose vehicle is towing a trailer, dolly, or other equipment shall ensure that the trailer hitch is securely latched, adequate for the load being towed, properly installed on the towing vehicle, and that safety chains are properly attached. 

1. The driver shall also ensure that the tow vehicle, in general, is rated to tow the type and weight of trailer being towed. 

2. The driver shall ensure that the trailer or other towed equipment is supplied with proper lighting including brake lights, turn signals, and running lights. 3. Any vehicle having a load which extends more than four (4) feet beyond the rear shall have the end of the load marked with a red flag, not less than twelve (12) inches in square. 

N. Intentional Misuse - Intentional misuse, abuse, moving violations, reckless operation, or negligent actions while operating a County vehicle may result in the suspension of the employee's driving privileges and is grounds for further disciplinary action. 

O. Citizen Complaints – Complaints regarding the use or operation of County vehicles are received in the County Administrator’s office. The County Administrator, or appropriate department or agency head, shall investigate the complaint and, if necessary, take appropriate corrective action. 

Either way, you can read the rest at the above link.  Anyone see major violations between county policy and state Codes?  Looks to us as though the county is in direct violation of Commonwealth Codes as is par for the course.  How many other violations does that county allow on its books?  How much of your tax money do county officials think they are allowed to waste?  When they are wasting your money like this, of course they need more tax revenue.  Of course they are going to raise your taxes.  So what if they are only wasting your money as we can clearly see they have no issues in doing so.  We think they should raise your taxes to 95 cents per hundred dollars and not leave it at just 72 cents.  That way they can buy more cars and waste more gas.  You should buy all of them lunch everyday.

  You should also buy them breakfast and dinner as well.  They all want raises so you should give them at least a 10% raise each and every year.  Why should they have to suffer even though you may be suffering?  You should pay all of their health care costs as well as that of their families costs too.  You should provide all of the county employees with no cost and no percentage loans so they can all buy and live in nice houses.  Maybe even your old house that you can no longer afford.

  You should also do the same so that they can all buy and drive nice cars or trucks.  Each employee should be able to afford an expensive Disney vacation at least once a year as well.  Come on and step up for these folks.  Who cares if they are in total violation of what Virginia allows and does not allow.  At least you will be doing your part in ensuring a truly rotten future for all of us.

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Gloucester, Virginia Steve Baranek of Animal Control - Fraud and Perjury?Above

Above is a video we just posted to You Tube that contains audio as recorded by Steve Baranek of Gloucester Animal Control on July 26th, 2014.  The audio file is DW_D0503 and was submitted into evidence to bring two counts of misdemeanor charges against Laura Crews of Gloucester.  Listen to the audio clip.  Its 33 seconds long.  Within the first 30 seconds Steve makes 3 admissions.  He admits that he is just walking around killing a few minutes.  The second admission is that there are no animals at the yard sale he is at and the third admission is that he is somewhere he should not be because he states, "I can not go shopping on company time".

  The accusations of statutory violations filed against Laura Crews are 19.2-415 for Disorderly Conduct and the second one is 19.2-460 Obstruction of Justice.  Now if you read Virginia Code and look at the annotations on how that code is to be used, in Washington v Commonwealth, 2007, S.E.2d 485, it is clear that law-enforcement must be engaged in their lawful duty in order for there to be an obstruction of justice.  A police officer sitting at a desk waiting on transportation of Washington, when Washington stated he would kill the police officer, the police officer was not engaged in a lawful duty where obstruction of justice was claimed as a violation.  The court threw out the Commonwealths accusations.

  So again, looking at Steve's own admissions above I can not begin to see where there is any valid claim on these accusations of statutory violations.  Here is the information he provided to a grand jury in Virginia Beach.

You can click on the image to blow it up for easier reading.  This is the same complaint written by Steve Baranek that is in the video above.  It seems as though Mr Baranek has committed fraud and perjury here.  He knew through his own admission that there were no animals at the yard sale but claims the yard sale was a Chicken Swap which would indicate a potentially valid reason for being there.  (I say potentially valid reason but in my view even if animals were there Animal Control has no legal right to patrol.  Virginia is a Dillon Rule state and the state, from what I have tried to find, does not allow Animal Control the ability to patrol public areas, streets, highways and or buildings).  The claim of calling the yard sale a Chicken Swap is where Steve has committed perjury in my view.  I say my view as I am not an attorney and I am not trying to practice law.  I am only a witness to just about every event of this case except the July 26th, 2014 situation.  I am only reporting the information as I know and understand it.

  The above has been reported to Holly Smith, Commonwealth Attorney for Gloucester 9th District.  We are waiting to see what she says on this.  We have so called witness testimony provided by prosecution that actually has 4 so called witnesses against Laura Crews for the accusations of statutory violations, but the records show that the testimony actually works against Steve as they all state that Steve was at a yard sale.  (Not acting in an official capacity).  I also call the so called witnesses such as the prosecution has failed to provide evidence of witnesses against the accused in violation of rules of evidence even after she stated in court she would do so.  A motion to quash was filed against any form of witnesses because of such by Laura Crews.

  What is even worse, the audio evidence was provided to Laura, by the prosecution.  I have to assume that the prosecuting attorney was to busy to listen to it to realize what the audio actually contains.  This would seem to me to be malicious prosecution by the prosecutor for the case.   A motion to dismiss is now before the court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  A motion to show cause has also been filed to know by what authority Animal Control has of patrolling public areas, streets, highways and or buildings.  So far, not one motion filed by Laura Crews has ever been answered by anyone at anytime all in violation of court rules.  How does that work?  She was told in court that she has to follow the rules, but no one else has to?  And she is the one facing criminal sanctions?  I really do not understand how that works.  But that is the question of a reasonable person and we must not be dealing with any form of reason here.

  Who knows maybe they told her she "SHALL" follow the rules of the court which would mean that sometime in the future she may follow the rules of the court if she so pleases.  (Look up the definition of the word - "SHALL").

modal verb: shall
  1. 1.
    (in the first person) expressing the future tense.
    "this time next week I shall be in Scotland"
  2. 2.
    expressing a strong assertion or intention.
    "they shall succeed"
  3. 3.
    expressing an instruction or command.
    "you shall not steal"
  4. 4.
    used in questions indicating offers or suggestions.
    "shall I send you the book?"

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Gloucester, VA BoS Member, Chris Huston, Violating State Code? Conflict of Interests?

On Tuesday night, May 20, 2014Gloucester County, Virginia Supervisor Christopher A. “Chris” Hutson voted to approve the Terrapin Cove Sewer project.  Part of the project entails installing public sewer along Laurel Drive at Gloucester Point.  The vote was 4 in favor of the project and 3 against it.
The following information was obtained from the Gloucester County website and is for property on Laurel drive that is owned by the parents of Hope Hutson.  Hope Hutson is the wife of Gloucester Supervisor Christopher Hutson and the property is where Mrs. Hutson grew up. 
Mr. Hutson should have abstained from voting on anything to do with the Terrapin Cove sewer project from our view.
General Property Information:
Owner Information:
Owner Address:
PO BOX 122
RPC #: 32740
Property Information:
Legal Description: RIVERDALE SUBD SEC C
Total Land Area: 0.383
Physical Location:
Magisterial District: Gloucester Point
Tax Map #: 051C 5 C 5
Building 1  $129,400.00   
Other Improvements:  $13,800.00   
Land Value:  $53,000.00   
Total Value:  $196,200.00

Our Notes:  How many other board members were aware that Mr Hutson has personal interests in this area?  Did Mr Hutson ask certain other BoS members for favors to get the above passed in his favor?  What must Mr Huston vote on that he might be against in the future that he will be forced to change his vote on in order to return any favors?  Is this one of the tests that we talked about yesterday on why certain people are in public service?  Did Mr Hutson just show us that he is in Public Service for his own personal interests and personal gain?  We actually have more information on that that helps to answer this question and some big surprises are coming up about Mr Hutson's background.

  In the mean time, we recommend that the BoS consult an outside source competent attorney that can explain to them the meanings of conflict of interest.  Ted seems to have a history that would suggest he just covers those up.

Saturday, December 7, 2013

Gloucester, VA Officials Violate Anti Trust Laws In Illegal Gun Fraud Scam?

Since when has it become legal to backdate laws?  What state code gives any locality in the state of Virginia the ability to backdate when a new ordinance update takes effect?  What state law exists in Virginia that allows any locality the ability to violate the Dillon Rule when Virginia is clearly a Dillon Rule state?

  Since when has it become law for county officials who are not law enforcement officers to sell guns without a license to do so in violation of state laws and antitrust laws?   These are some very tough questions we want to see answered.  Why?  Because it seems that our county Board of Supervisors, county attorney and county administrator have just broken a nice large list of laws that would all seem to qualify as felony charges against each one of them.

  Let's take a look at this mess.  Tuesday night, December 3rd, 2013 the Board of Supervisors voted to pass option 3 of county ordinance 22-20, Purchase of Handguns By Retired Officers.  The main objective?  To sell an already retired animal control officer a handgun for a buck.  Let's look at the entire list of options as it came off of the Gloucester County Virginia Government website.

Gloucester, VA Code 22-20 Purchase of Handguns from Chuck Thompson

Look at the very bottom of page 12.  It is retroactive as of July, 2013.  Wait, they just passed this vote Tuesday night, December 3rd, 2013.  How can they backdate this?  There was no public hearing prior to that date to argue either for or against the ordinance.  In fact, it did not even become an issue until September, 2013.  How can they backdate the new updated ordinance to July, 2013?  Isn't that fraud?  It was done to allow Carl Shipley, retired animal control officer, the ability to buy his handgun that he carried for years, for one dollar.

  But wait, we already argued that he is not eligible to buy his handgun as we are not able to see any state law that allows anyone in animal control to qualify under the state law as it presently exists.  County officials have not been able to show evidence of this either.

  Hold on now, it gets worse.  Let's look at the sale of firearms in the state of Virginia.

Chapter 11.1 - Firearms

§ 59.1-148.4. Sale of firearms by law-enforcement agencies prohibited; exception.
A law-enforcement agency of this Commonwealth shall not sell or trade any firearm owned and used or otherwise lawfully in its possession except (i) to another law-enforcement agency of the Commonwealth, (ii) to a licensed firearms dealer, (iii) to the persons as provided in § 59.1-148.3 or (iv) as authorized by a court in accordance with § 19.2-386.29.

Brenda Garton is the county administrator, not law enforcement, so exactly how is it that she can be authorized to sell handguns to retired animal control?

§ 15.2-915. Control of firearms; applicability to authorities and local governmental agencies.

A. No locality shall adopt or enforce any ordinance, resolution or motion, as permitted by §15.2-1425, and no agent of such locality shall take any administrative action, governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, storage or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof other than those expressly authorized by statute. For purposes of this section, a statute that does not refer to firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, shall not be construed to provide express authorization.
Nothing in this section shall prohibit a locality from adopting workplace rules relating to terms and conditions of employment of the workforce. However, no locality shall adopt any workplace rule, other than for the purposes of a community services board or behavioral health authority as defined in § 37.2-100, that prevents an employee of that locality from storing at that locality's workplace a lawfully possessed firearm and ammunition in a locked private motor vehicle. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101, from acting within the scope of his duties.
The provisions of this section applicable to a locality shall also apply to any authority or to a local governmental entity, including a department or agency, but not including any local or regional jail, juvenile detention facility, or state-governed entity, department, or agency.
B. Any local ordinance, resolution or motion adopted prior to the effective date of this act governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, other than those expressly authorized by statute, is invalid.
C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court may award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs to any person, group, or entity that prevails in an action challenging (i) an ordinance, resolution, or motion as being in conflict with this section or (ii) an administrative action taken in bad faith as being in conflict with this section.
D. For purposes of this section, "workplace" means "workplace of the locality."

From what we are reading above, county officials can not create the ordinance 22-20, option 3 as listed above in the container.

§ 15.2-1426. Form of ordinances.

The object of every ordinance, except an ordinance approving a budget, an annual appropriation ordinance or an ordinance which codifies ordinances, shall be clearly expressed in its title. All ordinances which repeal or amend existing ordinances shall identify by title the section to be repealed or amended.

Where is backdating added into the above?

§ 15.2-1427. Adoption of ordinances and resolutions generally; amending or repealing ordinances.

A. Unless otherwise specifically provided for by the Constitution or by other general or special law, an ordinance may be adopted by majority vote of those present and voting at any lawful meeting.

B. On final vote on any ordinance or resolution, the name of each member of the governing body voting and how he voted shall be recorded; however, votes on all ordinances and resolutions adopted prior to February 27, 1998, in which an unanimous vote of the governing body was recorded, shall be deemed to have been validly recorded. The governing body may adopt an ordinance or resolution by a recorded voice vote unless otherwise provided by law, or any member calls for a roll call vote. An ordinance shall become effective upon adoption or upon a date fixed by the governing body.

C. All ordinances or resolutions heretofore adopted by a governing body shall be deemed to have been validly adopted, unless some provision of the Constitution of Virginia or the Constitution of the United States has been violated in such adoption.

D. An ordinance may be amended or repealed in the same manner, or by the same procedure, in which, or by which, ordinances are adopted.

E. An amendment or repeal of an ordinance shall be in the form of an ordinance which shall become effective upon adoption or upon a date fixed by the governing body, but, if no effective date is specified, then such ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.

F. In counties, except as otherwise authorized by law, no ordinance shall be passed until after descriptive notice of an intention to propose the ordinance for passage has been published once a week for two successive weeks prior to its passage in a newspaper having a general circulation in the county. The second publication shall not be sooner than one calendar week after the first publication. The publication shall include a statement either that the publication contains the full text of the ordinance or that a copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the clerk's office of the circuit court of the county or in the office of the county administrator; or in the case of any county organized under the form of government set out in Chapter 5, 7 or 8 of this title, a statement that a copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the office of the clerk of the county board. Even if the publication contains the full text of the ordinance, a complete copy shall be available for public inspection in the offices named herein.
In counties, emergency ordinances may be adopted without prior notice; however, no such ordinance shall be enforced for more than sixty days unless readopted in conformity with the provisions of this Code.

G. In towns, no tax shall be imposed except by a two-thirds vote of the council members.

The highlighted section above does not allow for backdating.  Just dating.  Let's continue to look at the laws.

§ 15.2-1433. Codification and recodification of ordinances.

Any locality may codify or recodify any or all of its ordinances, in permanently bound or loose-leaf form. Such ordinances may be changed, altered or amended by the governing body, and ordinances or portions thereof may be deleted and new material may be added by the governing body. Such changes, alterations, amendments or deletions and such new material shall become effective on the effective date of the codification or recodification.

Ordinances relating to zoning and the subdivision of land may be included in any codification or recodification of ordinances; however, no change, alteration, amendment, deletion or addition of a substantive nature shall be made and no new material of a substantive nature shall be added to such ordinances unless, prior to the date of adoption of such codification or recodification, notice of such proposed changes, alterations, amendments, deletions or additions shall be published as required by the Code of Virginia and public hearings held thereon as provided by the Code of Virginia for adoption and amendment of zoning and subdivision ordinances. Renumbering or rearranging of sections, articles or other divisions of any such ordinance shall not be deemed to be a change, alteration or amendment of a substantive nature.

Any such codification or recodification may be adopted by reference by a single ordinance, without further publication of such codification or recodification or any portions thereof. The ordinance adopting such codification or recodification shall comply with all laws of the Commonwealth and any provision of any city or town charter requiring posting or publication of ordinances or notice of intent to adopt ordinances. At least one copy of such codification or recodification or a complete set of printer's proofs of the text thereof shall be made available for public inspection in the office of the clerk of the governing body in which such codification or recodification is proposed to be adopted.

No ordinance levying or increasing taxes shall be enacted as new material in any such codification or recodification or amended in substance therein unless advertised in accordance with general law.

Supplements for such codifications or recodifications may be prepared from time to time at the direction of the governing body of the locality, either as units or on a replacement page basis; however, where replacement pages are prepared, a distinguishing mark or notation shall be placed on each replacement page to distinguish it from original pages and pages of other supplements. No further adoption procedure shall be required for supplements or replacement pages in which no substantive change is made in ordinances previously and validly adopted by the governing body of the locality. If changes, alterations, amendments, deletions or additions of a substantive nature are made in any such supplement, then such supplement shall be adopted by the governing body in the same manner provided by general or special law.

At least one copy of any codification or recodification adopted hereunder and at least one copy of every supplement thereto shall be kept in the office of the clerk of the governing body and shall there be available for public inspection during normal business hours.

Any codification or recodification adopted hereunder shall be admitted in evidence in all courts without further proof.

From what this state code reads, backdating is not an option.  Also, we looked at the October meeting where this was first introduced.  Effective backdating was not listed as a potential option and the public was not made aware that this change to the local ordinance would be backdated.  So again, we ask how is this legal?  See below for the full documentation.

Now in all fairness, I can argue a case for the backdating based on the way the state code reads, however, it would have to be advertised and also included in previous documents to take legal effect, which the backdating of the new ordinance in question does not have attached to it.  Therefore, I could not reasonably argue the backdating the way it has been done.  Therefore, it is viewed as fraud in our opinion.

Let's also look at the legal definition of Animal Control.

§ 3.2-6555. Position of animal control officer created.

The governing body of each county or city shall, or each town may, employ an officer to be known as the animal control officer who shall have the power to enforce this chapter, all ordinances enacted pursuant to this chapter and all laws for the protection of domestic animals. The governing body may also employ one or more deputy animal control officers to assist the animal control officer in the performance of his duties. Animal control officers and deputy animal control officers shall have knowledge of the animal control and protection laws of the Commonwealth that they are required to enforce. When in uniform or upon displaying a badge or other credentials of office, animal control officers and deputy animal control officers shall have the power to issue a summons or obtain a felony warrant as necessary, providing the execution of such warrant shall be carried out by any law-enforcement officer as defined in § 9.1-101, to any person found in the act of violating any such law or any ordinance enacted pursuant to such law of the locality where the animal control officer or deputy animal control officer is employed.

 Commercial dog breeding locations shall be subject to inspection by animal control at least twice annually and additionally upon receipt of a complaint or their own motion to ensure compliance with state animal care laws and regulations. The animal control officer and the deputy animal control officers shall be paid as the governing body of each locality shall prescribe.
Any locality where an animal control officer or deputy animal control officers have been employed may contract with one or more additional localities for enforcement of animal protection and control laws by the animal control officers or deputy animal control officers. Any such contract may provide that the locality employing the animal control officer or deputy animal control officers shall be reimbursed a portion of the salary and expenses of the animal control officer or deputy animal control officers.

Every locality employing an animal control officer shall submit to the State Veterinarian, on a form provided by him, information concerning the employment and training status of the animal control officers employed by the locality. The State Veterinarian may require that the locality notify him of any change in such information.

The above does not show Animal Control officers as qualifying under state code; § 59.1-148.3. Purchase of handguns of certain officers.  So what we have here is a county ordinance that appears to violate the Dillon rule on multiple levels, is backdated and contains the sale of guns by a person not authorized by the state to sell handguns?  All written by a county attorney and approved in a 5 to 1 to 1 vote by the Board of Supervisors?  And these people patted themselves on the back for all of this and more?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, December 6, 2013

Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisor's Meeting Video for December, 2013

The last meeting for 3 members of the Board of Supervisors and they go out approving yet more ordinances that look to us like very clear violations of county code.  All we can say is we are very glad these criminals are gone.  And of course, they had to pat themselves on their own backs because no one else wants to go any where near them.

County animal control officers may purchase their county-issued
service handguns in the situations set forth in, and subject to the
requirements of, Va. Code § 59.1-148.3, and all amendments thereto, with
the approval of the county administrator.

So what does state code read?

§ 59.1-148.3. Purchase of handguns of certain officers.
A. The Department of State Police, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, the State Lottery Department, the Marine Resources Commission, the Capitol Police, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, the Department of Forestry, any sheriff, any regional jail board or authority and any local police department may allow any full-time sworn law-enforcement officer, deputy, or regional jail officer, a local fire department may allow any full-time sworn fire marshal, the Department of Motor Vehicles may allow any law-enforcement officer, and any institution of higher learning named in § 23-14 may allow any campus police officer appointed pursuant to Chapter 17 (§ 23-232 et seq.) of Title 23, retiring on or after July 1, 1991, who retires (i) after at least 10 years of service, (ii) at 70 years of age or older, or (iii) as a result of a service-incurred disability or who is receiving long-term disability payments for a service-incurred disability with no expectation of returning to the employment where he incurred the disability to purchase the service handgun issued or previously issued to him by the agency or institution at a price of $1. If the previously issued weapon is no longer available, a weapon of like kind may be substituted for that weapon. This privilege shall also extend to any former Superintendent of the Department of State Police who leaves service after a minimum of five years. This privilege shall also extend to any person listed in this subsection who is eligible for retirement with at least 10 years of service who resigns on or after July 1, 1991, in good standing from one of the agencies listed in this section to accept a position covered by the Virginia Retirement System. Other weapons issued by the Department of State Police for personal duty use of an officer, may, with approval of the Superintendent, be sold to the officer subject to the qualifications of this section at a fair market price determined as in subsection B, so long as the weapon is a type and configuration that can be purchased at a regular hardware or sporting goods store by a private citizen without restrictions other than the instant background check.
B. The agencies listed in subsection A may allow any full-time sworn law-enforcement officer who retires with 5 or more years of service, but less than 10, to purchase the service handgun issued to him by the agency at a price equivalent to the weapon's fair market value on the date of the officer's retirement. Any full-time sworn law-enforcement officer employed by any of the agencies listed in subsection A who is retired for disability as a result of a nonservice-incurred disability may purchase the service handgun issued to him by the agency at a price equivalent to the weapon's fair market value on the date of the officer's retirement. Determinations of fair market value may be made by reference to a recognized pricing guide.
C. The agencies listed in subsection A may allow the immediate survivor of any full-time sworn law-enforcement officer (i) who is killed in the line of duty or (ii) who dies in service and has at least 10 years of service to purchase the service handgun issued to the officer by the agency at a price of $1.
D. The governing board of any institution of higher learning named in § 23-14 may allow any campus police officer appointed pursuant to Chapter 17 (§ 23-232 et seq.) of Title 23 who retires on or after July 1, 1991, to purchase the service handgun issued to him at a price equivalent to the weapon's fair market value on the date of the officer's retirement. Determinations of fair market value may be made by reference to a recognized pricing guide.
E. Any officer who at the time of his retirement is a full-time sworn law-enforcement officer with a state agency listed in subsection A, when the agency allows purchases of service handguns, and who retires after 10 years of state service, even if a portion of his service was with another state agency, may purchase the service handgun issued to him by the agency from which he retires at a price of $1.
F. The sheriff of Hanover County may allow any auxiliary or volunteer deputy sheriff with a minimum of 10 years of service, upon leaving office, to purchase for $1 the service handgun issued to him.
G. Any sheriff or local police department, in accordance with written authorization or approval from the local governing body, may allow any auxiliary law-enforcement officer with more than 10 years of service to purchase the service handgun issued to him by the agency at a price that is equivalent to or less than the weapon's fair market value on the date of purchase by the officer.
H. The agencies listed in subsection A may allow any full-time sworn law-enforcement officer currently employed by the agency to purchase his service handgun, with the approval of the chief law-enforcement officer of the agency, at a fair market price. This subsection shall only apply when the agency has purchased new service handguns for its officers, and the handgun subject to the sale is no longer used by the agency or officer in the course of duty.

Nope, don't see Animal Control listed in the above list of who can buy a handgun.  But the county does not care and they are going to sell one to Carl Shipley for all his years of terrorizing animal owners in the county?  Twitching Ted, (I'm still not an attorney), Wilmot, the court jester, county attorney is the one who wrote this code knowing that Virginia is a Dillon Rule state.  Maybe the new board should fire both Ted and Brenda as their first line of duty come January, 2014.  We must say, Twitching Ted performed in his sorry manner giving away the fact you just can't trust this guy?  Watch him in the video.  His body language still has not improved although he has taken a bit more control over his hands when he isn't hiding them.

  Anyone find it odd that Sheriff Warren refuses to take responsibility for selling a handgun to an animal control officer?  Is it because Sheriff Warren is smart enough to know that he can't do that?  Is Brenda being put up as a patsy then for selling a handgun to a retired Animal Control officer?  The fall gal?  It would seem that the new board might just have just cause for termination of two overpaid county employees and they do not get to pass go and collect $200.00 either.  They would just get to go.  

Now here is the real kicker, Chris Hutson stated that he had issues with going with anything other than keeping within the state rules or following the Dillon Rule.  He voted against version 3 of the new county code because he feels like it's in violation of the Dillon Rule and accused Ted of making up his own laws.  Watch the video, it's right there.  All the other board members had no problem with violating state laws?  Anyone have issues with this?  Ted didn't care and neither did Brenda.  Seems they have no issues with violating state laws.  We need criminals running the county why?  Just open the jail cells, those folks could probably do a much better job than these two.  We can just imagine how many people are behind bars that should not be and we see those who should be but are not.

That's okay, we are presently working on a plan that will forever prevent the county from violating Dillon rules in the future.  If they do, it will cost them very dearly and we are working on this at the state level with the introduction of new state laws.  Here is a little preview, it falls in under state compliance audits.  Fail an audit and funding disappears and criminal charges could also be brought along with investigations into the courts depending on the nature of the violations.  That's just a small sample preview.  The state then forces the criminals out of office and may criminally charge the offenders.  Does that make you nervous Ted?  How about you Brenda?  Welcome to accountability for actions.  Coming very soon.

Enhanced by Zemanta