Youngkin’s first veto targets Arlington (and press release shows he is clueless)

[Anonymous]

Basically, he issued a veto so that whomever is making the decision about police misconduct will be answering to the county's top cop.

It's corruption under any other name. Do you want a biased investigation of government employee malfeasance?

Because that's what police are - government employees.

Hell no.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Basically, he issued a veto so that whomever is making the decision about police misconduct will be answering to the county's top cop.

It's corruption under any other name. Do you want a biased investigation of government employee malfeasance?

Because that's what police are - government employees.

Hell no.

Uh, no. Read the article.

[Anonymous]

LOL and here the GOP touts itself as the party of local government and local control.

Guess that was a lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county board appoints all the members of the oversight board. You also want them to appoint the "independent" auditor?

Yes, because that will make the auditor more independent than if they answer to the county manager.

Just not needed and a waste of time and money. Good veto.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From a governance perspective, having the auditor report to five elected politicians rather than to an appointed county manager doesn't sound like an improvement. The county manager still reports to the board and can be questioned about the work of the auditor vis-a-vis the oversight board.

Good for Youngkin.

+1
Sounds like he has clearly done his homework on this issue and knows exactly what he's doing. Another OP fail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Investing in a single politically-appointed individual the power of judge, jury, and executioner without any input from law-enforcement officers or delineated qualifications for such individual constitutes an undue burden for those who protect and serve the community."

This is the reason I support his veto on this. As an Arlington resident, he absolutely made the right choice.

Absolutely agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county board appoints all the members of the oversight board. You also want them to appoint the "independent" auditor?

Yes, because that will make the auditor more independent than if they answer to the county manager.

Just not needed and a waste of time and money. Good veto.

The commission and the auditor position already exist. The only question is who the auditor will report to. This veto won’t save a penny.

God, Republicans are so ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Investing in a single politically-appointed individual the power of judge, jury, and executioner without any input from law-enforcement officers or delineated qualifications for such individual constitutes an undue burden for those who protect and serve the community."

This is the reason I support his veto on this. As an Arlington resident, he absolutely made the right choice.

That's right, if it isn't the same ole, same ole something might change for the good and we can't have that.

Read something other than the press release if you want an informed opinion. The passage you quoted was one of the things Youngkin fundamentally misunderstood about the bill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a governance perspective, having the auditor report to five elected politicians rather than to an appointed county manager doesn't sound like an improvement. The county manager still reports to the board and can be questioned about the work of the auditor vis-a-vis the oversight board.

Good for Youngkin.

+1
Sounds like he has clearly done his homework on this issue and knows exactly what he's doing. Another OP fail.

Liberal arlingtonian here and support the veto. Of course would never say this I’m polite company because supporting him in public is verboten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a governance perspective, having the auditor report to five elected politicians rather than to an appointed county manager doesn't sound like an improvement. The county manager still reports to the board and can be questioned about the work of the auditor vis-a-vis the oversight board.

Good for Youngkin.

+1
Sounds like he has clearly done his homework on this issue and knows exactly what he's doing. Another OP fail.

Liberal arlingtonian here and support the veto. Of course would never say this I’m polite company because supporting him in public is verboten.

Why do you support the veto?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county board appoints all the members of the oversight board. You also want them to appoint the "independent" auditor?

Yes, because that will make the auditor more independent than if they answer to the county manager.

Just not needed and a waste of time and money. Good veto.

The position already exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So sloppy.

that is so on brand for republicans

You know the libs are flailing when they are clinging onto typos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So sloppy.

that is so on brand for republicans

You know the libs are flailing when they are clinging onto typos.

Look, elected officials hire professionals to write their public statements. It is embarrassing how frequently you see mistakes of this nature in releases from top officials. TFG had the worst press office I have ever seen, but Youngkin et al are right up there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a governance perspective, having the auditor report to five elected politicians rather than to an appointed county manager doesn't sound like an improvement. The county manager still reports to the board and can be questioned about the work of the auditor vis-a-vis the oversight board.

Good for Youngkin.

+1
Sounds like he has clearly done his homework on this issue and knows exactly what he's doing. Another OP fail.

Liberal arlingtonian here and support the veto. Of course would never say this I’m polite company because supporting him in public is verboten.

Why do you support the veto?

Color me surprised that “liberal arlingtonian” pp wasn’t able to answer this question.