The scandal over Prince William County Board of Supervisors chairman Corey Stewart using taxpayer money to send out a clearly political mailing is growing. See Craig's Musings, and the the Washington Post for more. In addition, I have received information from a letter by Pete Frisbie, Chair of the Prince William County Democratic Committee, to Gary C. Friedman, an employee of Corey Stewart's who submitted his resignation letter from the Democratic Committee. Frisbie's letter responding to Friedman discusses the printing company that Stewart used to send out his mailing (Executive Press), the overall ethics of the mailing, the board meeting scheduled for this Tuesday, October 16 on illegal immigration, and more. Here are the key points, the letters are on the "flip."*Executive Press is owned by Rebecca A. Stoeckel, Chairman of the 11th District Republican Committee.
*Executive Press has received $350,356 in payments since 2000 for printing, direct mail, fundraising and other services. More than $140,000 of this money came from Sen. James K. "Jay" O'Brien, with the rest from other Republicans like Del. Tim Hugo, Sen. Jeannemarie Devolites Davis, Jackson Miller and Sen. Ken Cuccinelli.
*Executive Press is located in Fairfax County, raising the obvious question: why didn't Mr. Stewart help a small business in Prince William County with $30,000 of taxpayer's money?
*The $30,000 that Corey Stewart took from his discretionary fund to send out the postcard has, in the past, been used to help local charities. What does this say to those in need in Prince William County, and also about Corey Stewart's priorities in general?
*The bulk mailing permit number on Corey Stewart's mail piece is the same one used on some of Stewart's and the Prince William County Republican Committee's political advertisements in the past. This mailing permit belongs to Executive Press.
*Corey Stewart's office did not use the Prince William County Government's print shop to produce this clearly political mailing. Obviously, this resulted in additional cost to taxpayers; it is unclear only how badly taxpayer funds were misused by Corey Stewart or why this was done. One possibility is that Stewart did not want anyone to know about his clearly unethical, if not illegal, behavior.
*The Prince William County board meeting in question is not a public hearing, but a normal Board of Supervisors meeting. If it is going to be a public hearing, it calls into question whether county guidelines are being followed and whether it is even legal to have a vote on Tuesday.
Obviously, this is all very shady and Corey Stewart may indeed be in serious trouble (both legal and political). The letters from Frisbie and Friedman are on the "flip." In the meantime, go Sharon Pandak! It's definitely time for a change in Prince William County.
Gary,I am reviewing my email now and I cannot say that I am surprised by this at all. Over the past two years you have continually violated the oath you took to support Democratic candidates in this county. As an Eagle Scout I was always taught to be true to any oath I took and anytime I give my word to do something to take it seriously. To do anything less is unethical in my own opinion. You are doing this as well because you realized that there have been a number of individuals calling for your removal from the Democratic Committee for violating your oath and because your employer, Mr. Stewart told you to do so.
Mr. Friedman, you have openly supported Republican candidates and are a paid aide to Corey Stewart. Republicans now say that you are his gatekeeper and the individual who helps him on all of his policies and activities. You should be ashamed of yourself.
You also have many facts wrong in your letter to me that should be addressed.
* First it is your employer, Mr. Stewart who has skirted the law and played fast to the truth over the years he has been in office.
* You should also know that to my knowledge it was not an individual associated with any political party that contacted Mr. Ebert's office on this matter first. This was done even before the individuals you have mentioned were even aware of Mr. Stewart's political advertisement paid for with county taxpayer's money.
* Mr. Stewart took $30,000 from his discretionary fund to send out a postcard to residents. This is money that in the past has been used to help local charities in noteworthy causes. What is this saying to those in need in our community? I firmly believe that the only person Mr. Stewart cares about is himself and his own political future. This makes him unfit to continue to serve has our county's Chairman of the Board of Supervisors.
* The wording on the letter is fair from neutral. Did Mr. Stewart ask the County Attorney for guidance in his language on the mailer?
* For your information, Tuesday's meeting is not a public hearing. It is a normal Board of Supervisors meeting. If it is to be a public hearing, it calls into question whether the county guidelines are being followed and whether it is even legal to have a vote on Tuesday.
* Your employer's office did not use the Prince William County Government's print shop to produce this clearly political mailing. I wonder why this is. Instead Mr. Stewart asked for three bids from outsides vendors. I would like to know who the three bids were and if this actually happened. Also what was the additional cost to taxpayers by not using the County's print shop? This is clearly a breach of public trust and misuse of taxpayer funds. Was this done so no one in the county government outside of Mr. Stewart's circle of aides, including yourself, Mr. Friedman knew about this? This clearly looks to any unbiased observer to be unethical behavior.
* Also the bulk mailing permit number on the mail piece happens to be the same one used on some of Corey's and the Prince William County Republican Committee's political advertisements in the past. This mailing permit belongs to Executive Press.
* Who is Executive Press? Well, it happens to be owned by Rebecca A. Stoeckel who also happens to be the Chairman of the 11th District Republican Committee. Executive Press is located in Fairfax County, why didn't Mr. Stewart help a small business in Prince William County with $30,000 of taxpayer's money? This is the company that printed all of Mr. Stewart's campaign materials in 2003 and quite a number of his materials in 2006. In 2003, Mr. Stewart racked up high bill with Executive Press that went unpaid. There is some debate now whether this debt has been repaid. There is also some question as to whether or not the unpaid balance was properly declared on his campaign finance forms. Could it be that the reason this company was chosen was to continue to make up for the unpaid debt and to smooth over that relationship? Couldn't be could it, because that clearly would be unethical and a violation of the public's trust and a gross misuse of taxpayer funds.Any Commonwealth's Attorney should investigate this because it looks unethical at its core. Do to anything less would be irresponsible regardless of what political party they belong to. The number of phone calls and emails in opposition to Mr. Stewart's political mailing with taxpayer money has been overwhelming. I hope that federal prosecutors look into this because I strongly believe that they will side with Mr. Ebert and look into all of Mr. Stewart activities over the past year.
There are a number of distributing instances of Mr. Stewart openly threatening to remove business licenses of small business owners with his own hand, who place Democratic signs on their property. This sir is nothing less than intimidation by a public official and is illegal. I hope that the Justice Department looks into this as well.
Also you recently worked with two Republican operatives to form an organization called the Prince William Citizens for Balanced Growth. This is nothing more than a front group created to provide local Republicans, particularly Corey Stewart, cover for their utter failure to address the important issues facing our County
Even a quick google search of this group would reveal the following facts:
* That this group is absolutely NOT non-partisan.
* That this group consists of two individuals and only two individuals.
* That one of these individuals, Bob Pugh, is a long-time Republican Party operative.
* That this group refused to notify several possible Democratic participants until less than 24 hours before their scheduled press conference.
* That this group was created only after extensive discussions with Corey Stewart on how he can best use the organization to help him win this fall.
* That this group grossly misrepresented the facts throughout their presentation
* That this group has failed to register as a political action committee as required by law.
* That this bogus press conference was only attended by four individuals. Three of these four individuals were either reporters or bloggers. The only other individual in attendance was a member of the Prince William County Democratic Committee who was only there to try (in vain) to keep them honest.
* That Mr. Stewart and yourself have a long history of creating and using political action committees and front organizations like this group and Voters to Stop Sprawl. They use these groups to further their own agenda and to dupe voters into believing that they have wide-spread support for their positions.You also notified me that your letter is a public letter well after the initial email you sent me so you can make all of the publishing deadlines for tomorrow's papers. Yet again another questionable and highly unethical move on your part. Another one in a series of unethical activities by yourself, Mr. Friedman. I hope that the media takes you for what you are- nothing more than a paid spokesperson for Mr. Stewart.
In conclusion I wouldn't be surprised that you didn't even write this letter, in fact I believe that Mr. Stewart's campaign manager wrote this for you. Mr. Stewart has been called out on his unethical mailing and is looking for ways to limit his political damage. So he picks the closest target, Mr.Ebert and the Democratic Party. Mr. Friedman, you are nothing less than Corey's puppet and I wish you the best with your employer, Mr. Stewart.
It may pain you in a few weeks that you have left the Democratic Party now, when we have our most successful election in many years. Voters throughout Prince William County are tired after 15 years of Republican dominated governance in our county and in our state legislative. Our county's residents' quality of life has diminished during these years as elected Republicans cared only for themselves and those of their closest supporters. It is high time we bring back integrity and responsibility to our elected leadership, here in Prince William County.
Sincerely,
Pete Frisbie
Chair, Prince William County Democratic Committee
Dear Sirs:
Effective immediately, I am herewith resigning my membership in and all support for your committees, for reasons made clear below.
Prince William Commonwealth's Attorney Paul Ebert's decision to announce today, three weeks before an election, his plans to appoint a special prosecutor (Potomac News online 10/12/07: "Legality of Stewart mailer questioned") to look into a mailer sent to county citizens by Chairman Corey A. Stewart is - there is no other way to say it - political thuggery at the worst level I have ever seen in our county .
I have lived in this county for nearly three decades. During all that time I have watched Mr. Ebert time and again construct and maintain a firewall between the political arena and our judicial system. During those many years, Mr. Ebert has protected our judicial system when clearly politically motivated "campaign complaints" have come to his office by competing campaigns. I have always agreed with him, and sometimes it has not been easy to do so, that no matter how outrageous the alledged campaign offense may be, he could not and would not allow the judicial system to be compromised by political motivations, especially in close proximity to an election. If he has erred in the past, it has always been on the side of keeping politics out of the judicial system. Until now. His announced decision represents a 180 degree reversal of his long standing practice. As such it is a dark and ugly stain on an otherwise distinguished career in public service.
Why would Mr. Ebert violate his own decades old policy? The only possible explanation is political motivation. Mr. Ebert is a long standing, senior member of the Democratic Party. He has been a major campaign contributor to Corey Stewart's opponent, Sharon Pandak, in both last year's special election and in this year's general election. It is these reasons, no doubt Mr. Ebert will assert, prompted him to appoint an outside investigator rather than have his own office do the work, and he is right to remove himself and his office from the complaint. But, Mr. Ebert also knows that the mere announcement of an official investigation, three weeks before an election, is designed to have, and may have the effect of politically damaging the object of the investigation. This is clear and obvious abuse of process for political purposes. Every arm of the The Democratic Party should be outraged by Mr. Ebert's conduct.
If Mr. Ebert were to serve justice, he would have accepted the complaint, had it sealed immediately, and he would have waited until after the election to make any public statement whatsoever regarding the complaint. That is what consistency with his long standing practices would have demanded. But, it seems clear Mr. Ebert's interests were somewhere other than in serving justice.
Mr. Stewart has said that he will ask federal prosecutors to look into whether Mr. Ebert's actions are lawful. He should. He should also ask the Virginia Attorney General to do the same. There needs to be an examination for possible violation of laws or rules preventing this sort of conduct from public prosecutors. Further, Mr. Ebert should be brought before the Virginia Bar Association to have his conduct examined, to determine which rules of professional conduct he may have violated, and to determine if he should be allowed to continue to keep his license to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Mr. Ebert has said he made the decision because "It doesn't smell good", (of Mr. Stewart's mailer). If that is true then the timing of Mr. Ebert's public announcement reeks most foul. I cannot see how his announcement can be viewed as anything other than an improper, intentional abuse of our judicial process motivated to improperly influence the outcome of a lawful election.
Nor, it must be said, are Sharon Pandak's hands clean on this matter. During a candidates forum, on the day of the mailer complaint, it was obvious to me that Sharon Pandak and Woodbridge Supervisor Hilda Barg, were acting in concert. (Apparently Ms. Barg was the complaintant.) If Ms. Pandak is so desparate to win an election that she will collude with Ms. Barg in getting her good friend and supporter Paul Ebert to overturn his own policy in the Commonwealth's Attorney office, to make a carefully timed announcement intended to damage her political opponent, then none of them are fit for public service of any sort. How can anyone trust such a candidate?
As to my continued membership in the Prince William County Democratic committee structure, I cannot allow my name to be associated with any organization that either condones or promulgates such fundamentally unethical and, at its core, unAmerican conduct, or whose most senior representatives or candidates engage in such activities. Unfortunately, the conduct of these three individuals all too accurately reflects the prevailing culture inside the Prince William County Democratic committee structure these days, and I will not be a part of it. Shame on Paul Ebert, Sharon Pandak, and Hilda Barg for compromising the integrity of our judicial system and for fouling the honor of our political arena in Prince William County.
Gary C. Friedman
Gainnesville
October 12, 2007
If I were a PWC Board member neither beholden to one side or the other on Tuesday's vote nor facing a constituency on election day that clearly wanted me to vote one way or the other at the Board meeting, I'd err on the side of caution and vote no.
It's one thing to be forced to take a stand on a symbolic issue like whether duly enacted laws ought to be enforced. It's quite another to vote on a measure to attempt to enforce the laws.
As President Bush liked to say in response to calls for him to do something about global warming, "the science isn't in yet." In this case, what isn't in yet are the answers to two fundamental questions on which no legislator ought to vote without having:
1) Is the legislation reasonably likely to address legitimate concerns; and,
2) Are the taxpayers willing to pay for it?
On an issue fraught with controversy and emotion like this, it makes much more sense to divorce it from politics as much as possible. Accordingly, the Board should vote no and postpone any subsequent vote on funding the resolution until after election day.
Also it is clear that Mr.Friedman did not write his letter. After all, how can a resident of PWC for 30 years and someone who has ran and lost 3 times for supervisor misspell Gainesville so badly?
Great job by Corey and his campaign manager making yet another mistake.
Aside from the foolish behavior of Stewart (no one can overlook the surly adolescence of his petulant expressions displayed on the videos, by the way) there is the predictable difficulty of accomplishing the proposed "checking" of status of anyone the police encounter, which I outlined in another comment, partially reproduced here:
"... the feds' "records" are neither accurate nor complete, plus it takes valuable police time, not to mention the training required to do this. Where do you hold these suspects while doing the checking and verifying? Will (not) the police have to "verify" everyone to be sure they are accomplishing their new chore--- Canadians? Other tourists? Look at the ridiculous no-fly lists for an example of the competence of Homeland Security checklists after 7 years of fumbling around.
I am afraid administratively and logistically this plan is simply not doable, at least as proposed by a small jurisdiction with limited resources. Not to mention the very possible constitutional questions.
Next thing you know, Prince William will have to have passports, visas, and ID cards for its citizens to manage this supposedly simple checking of possible illegal immigrants. Whoa!"
