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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.