Guest Post by “Fed Up” 

Disclaimer: All guest posts are the opinion of the poster and do not necessarily represent the views of administration. M-H

Corey Stewart has been caught again playing fast and loose with taxpayers’ dollars, despite his best efforts to conceal another boondoggle.  Buried deep in a staff report (  on the carryover budget (page 8 of a 54 page document), considered by the Board the same day his scheming with the Avendale development was distracting everyone, and abetted by the inability of his own staff and the local media to perform elementary school arithmetic, Stewart slipped through nearly a million dollars in additional taxpayer money for the Supervisors’ offices. 

From the “News & Messenger” on August 15,

“The budget item was passed as part of a much larger carryover budget, in which items from the previous fiscal year get carried over to the new fiscal year. According to county spokesman Jason Grant, the $712,000 increase should have been included in the fiscal 2011 budget process, but was accidentally omitted.” 

 Should have been included in fiscal 2011 budget process?  Ya think?  Then why not consider it as a separate budget item at the August 3 meeting rather than burying it in the staff report on the carryover?


 The budget increases are shown in the detailed line items in the accompanying exhibit.  I can’t get to $712,000 out of these numbers.  They add up to $931,182 on my computer.  Nearly a million taxpayer dollars for things some supervisors say they don’t need and others plan to squander.  Staff can’t add and reporters don’t check the numbers.  No wonder this County is in such bad shape.

 Further from the same article, “Supervisors Michael C. May, R-Occoquan, Martin Nohe, R-Coles and Maureen S. Caddigan, D-Dumfries, voted against the budget increase.  The three agreed that this wasn’t the time to add money to the budget when county employees haven’t received a cost of living adjustment the last two years.”

 Yet regarding Nohe, “With $273,591 squirreled away in carryover funds, Nohe hopes to use those savings in his budget to complete a bicycle trail to Hoadly Road.”  Marty – how about just give it back if you vote against it saying this move is wrong?  You want a bicycle trail when we’re struggling to balance the budget, have cut transportation for seniors, can’t provide all the basics our schools need, and staff hasn’t received a cost of living increase in two years?

 Why does Wally Covington need an additional $302,004?  He never returns calls or has time to see anyone unless they are a developer or big landowner bearing campaign contributions.

 In a separate article the same day, the “News & Messenger” reports, “Prince William Board of County Supervisors Chairman Corey A. Stewart was $7,500 over his office budget the past year.  According to Stewart, a change in benefits for one of his staffers, as well as a necessary salary increase for another, necessitated the increase in spending during the fiscal year. Stewart, who had a $230,556 budget in fiscal 2010, employs three staff aides—one of whom received a $15,000 bump in salary.”

 Corey – how many other County employees received a “change in benefits” or a “$15,000 bump in salary”?  Is your staffer working so hard on your campaign for reelection next year and your campaign for Lt. Governor in 2013 that you thought they deserved a big tip from PWC taxpayers?

 Next time Corey claims to be a fiscal conservative, watch out for him also trying to sell you some swamp land.  Oh, I forgot.  Corey already promised that swampland to the Gainesville Grizzlies parents in exchange for their volunteering their kids as shills in his scheme to get Avendale passed.


9 Thoughts to “More from the Captain Soundbite Fiscal Shenanigans Show”

  1. Elena

    I too am wondering about this money!!

  2. George S. Harris

    I don’t have the time or the inclination to find the exact law, but if a federal executive got caught overspending his/her budget,they would be in deep do-do. There are some severe penalties for overspending.

    Is there no way the taxpayers can reverse this theft? I asked Melissa Peacor if Corey was using any county assets for his “Rule of Law”campaign and got a non-answer signed by her and the county attorney–talk about CYA!

    I thought the county had an oversight office, but if it does, the occupant is not doing his/her job.

  3. Need to Know

    Is there anyway of posting that letter for us to read (with George’s personal and contact information blacked out)?

  4. I have emailed George and am waiting for a reply.

  5. George S. Harris


    @Need to Know

    Basically what I asked Melissa was to investigate whether Corey Stewart had used any county resources–time, material, personnel–in pursuit of his “Rule of Law” campaign. What I got back was a non-answer stating that said no county staff reporting to Melissa or Angela Horan had been involved. Also recommended that I contact Corey to see if he had used any county resources. Duh!!!!! Pure CYA.

  6. Mom

    Simple issue to solve Mr. Harris, just send the following:

    Dear Ms. Horan:

    In accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, please provide copies of any correspondence, written, electronic or otherwise, to or from the Chairman of the County Board of Supervisors regarding the “Virginia Rule of Law Act” from _______ to ______.

    Please provide any reponsive documents in electronic form.



  7. Gregory Glenn

    Anyone remember the effort to get the BOCS to approve an $8,000 annual expense so that the Planning Commission public hearings could be televised? Nohe, along with Jenkins, Barg, and Caddigan voted against. Nohe specifically stated the reason for his vote was that he thought the money should be evaluated as part of the regular budget process. Still not money for PC hearings. So, I guess $8K is too much to give public access to these proceedings but $700K – $1M, buried below the surface to use or misuse by BOCS members, without public discussion, is okay.

    Re: questions about his office staff working on Stewart’s political activities v. government work: They do it all the time. Quite frankly, this is not unique to Stewart but he takes it to a whole new level.

  8. I said I wan’t going to look it up, but here is information on the federal Antideficiency Act, which makes it a crime to overspend your budget–up to $5000 fine and/or two years in jail. Apparently the county and/or the commonwealth doesn’t have any such law.

    Antideficiency Act Background
    The Antideficiency Act is one of the major laws through which Congress exercises its constitutional control of the public purse. It evolved over a period of time in response to various abuses.

    In its current form, the law prohibits:

    Making or authorizing an expenditure from, or creating or authorizing an obligation under, any appropriation or fund in excess of the amount available in the appropriation or fund unless authorized by law. 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1)(A).
    Involving the government in any obligation to pay money before funds have been appropriated for that purpose, unless otherwise allowed by law. 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1)(B).
    Accepting voluntary services for the United States, or employing personal services not authorized by law, except in cases of emergency involving the safety of human life or the protection of property. 31 U.S.C. § 1342.
    Making obligations or expenditures in excess of an apportionment or reapportionment, or in excess of the amount permitted by agency regulations. 31 U.S.C. § 1517(a).
    The fiscal principles underlying the Antideficiency Act are really quite simple. Government officials may not make payments or commit the United States to make payments at some future time for goods or services unless there is enough money in the “bank” to cover the cost in full. The “bank,” of course, is the available appropriation.

    Violations of the Antideficiency Act are subject to sanctions of two types, administrative and penal. The Antideficiency Act is the only one of the title 31, United States Code, fiscal statutes to prescribe penalties of both types.

    An officer or employee who violates 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a) (obligate/expend in excess or advance of appropriation), section 1342 (voluntary services prohibition), or section 1517(a) (obligate/expend in excess of an apportionment or administrative subdivision as specified in an agency’s regulation) “shall be subject to appropriate administrative discipline including, when circumstances warrant, suspension from duty without pay or removal from office.” 31 U.S.C. §§ 1349(a), 1518.

    In addition, an officer or employee who “knowingly and willfully” violates any of the three provisions cited above “shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both.” 31 U.S.C. §§ 1350, 1519.

    Reporting Requirements

    Once it is determined that there has been a violation of 31 U.S.C. §§ 1341(a), 1342, or 1517(a), the agency head “shall report immediately to the President and Congress all relevant facts and a statement of actions taken.” 31 U.S.C. §§ 1351, 1517(b). The reports are to be signed by the agency head. The report to the President is to be forwarded through the Director of OMB. In addition, the heads of executive branch agencies and the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall also transmit “[a] copy of each report . . . to the Comptroller General on the same date the report is transmitted to the President and Congress.” 31 U.S.C. §§ 1351, 1517(b), as amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-447, div. G, title II, § 1401, 118 Stat. 2809, 3192 (Dec. 8, 2004).

    OMB has issued further instructions on preparing the reports, which may be found in OMB Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, § 145 (June 21, 2005). The report is to include all pertinent facts and a statement of all actions taken to address and correct the Antideficiency Act violation (such as administrative discipline imposed, referral to the Justice Department where appropriate, and new safeguards imposed). An agency also should include a request for a supplemental or deficiency appropriation when needed.

    What if GAO uncovers a violation but the agency thinks GAO is wrong? The agency must still make the required reports, and must include an explanation of its disagreement.

    For more background information on the Antideficiency Act its purpose, history and requirements go to, open Volume II (2nd ed.) of Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Chapter 6, Availability of Appropriations: Amount

Comments are closed.