Report Alleges FBI Investigation into County Land Purchases

Great article John!

IMO, the desired response sought by the repeating FBI ploy is as follows:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5IWHt4OoNk

The reason I like your article? Because it reports, as was reported the last time, that reporters are again reporting that reported corruption is reportedly under reported investigation (again---see above link), which reminds me of the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn8Pua5rhj4&feature=PlayList&p=EF51DC983C...

Interviewer's Island meets Frau Blucher! (EEEEEEEE!!!!!!)

At a minimum government procurement standards were not followed with the acquisition. The property was selected using a Request for Proposals (RFP) process. The RFP response period closed two weeks after the advertisment. A two week RFP is questionable at best based on more typical 6-8 week responses. One respondent was excluded from consideration without explanation. That site complied with the Comprehensive Plan which calls for new schools to be located in or near Towns. Conflict of interest allegations exist regarding the prior relationship between the School Board's attorney and his former client Mr. Cangiano. LCPS' allegations of alternative sites requiring condemnation is false. LCPS has failed to fully comply with the FOIA, such that multiple requests have been required before specifically requested documentation provided. Illegal? Time will tell. Unethical? By most citizens' standards who have taken the time to delve into the details - Absolutely.

anon 6/20 10:56, the RFP is a red herring.

The county STILL has no vetted and adopted RFP process for site selection, and one was only put out to appease the protest crowd, which promptly started protesting is wasn't good enough and demanding the process be taken over.

Perhaps when staff finishes drawing UP an RFP process, which THEN goes through a public process, and is THEN perhaps ADOPTED, we'll have a better one, hmmm?

In the meantime, Blucher! EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Once again Ms Munsey, you are misinformed.

During the Jt Comm meeting in November, Dr. Hatrick defended LCPS' RFP process used when they purchased Harmony Intermediate site in ~2001. That acquisition was not contested by the public. The public was involved and, relatively speaking, it sailed through the approval process. LCPS set a precedent with that acquistion. For example, all sites proposed for Harmony were rated systematically using a numerical system, which is a standard method government and business commonly use to evaluate proposals. That method, which was proven with LCPS' acquisition of Harmony site, was not remotely followed with Cangiano.

Further, the Joint Committee proposed use of their new Land Acquisition Process Model back in November. And they freely admitted that was the process used for the Cangiano acquisition (see LCPS sites that process in their presentation made during the Apr 29 2009 community meeting on Wheatland project - see LCPS Planning website). That process is also viewable at:

http://www.loudoun.gov/controls/speerio/resources/RenderContent.aspx?dat...

I suppose the Jt Comm did vet that process in a manner of speaking because they solicited public input on it and received input from over 25 speakers during their Feb09 public hearing on the topic. The following week the Cangiano contract was announced.

One of the RFP responses was the Scott's 57-acre assemblage. McDonough just took that alternative to the next step and successfully wooed neighbors to assemble a new, improved 106-acre assemblage that was within range of public utilities and was significantly cheaper than Cangiano site - proving competition reduces prices. It was so good, it even got Cangiano to drop his price ALOT! McDonough's efforts make LCPS look totally incompetent because LCPS didn't even approach adjoining property owners to build the assemblage themselves.

anon, I'm sorry but it seems you are not only misinformed as to process, but actively misinforming.

Until a new process is issued in a staff report with recommendations (including from the county attorney's office--there is that teeny little matter of making sure it complies with existing law), goes through public hearing and is in some form formally adopted, it doesn't exist except in the current form of make-it-up-as-we-go.

Which may not be working too well for obtaining school sites, but I doubt that is the point.

Some seem to want the school board power absorbed into that of the Board of Supervisors.

And pardon me, but I think they have quite enough power already.

Re: "...the Jt Comm did vet that process in a manner of speaking because they solicited public input on it and received input from over 25 speakers..."

That's hardly an official or a quality vetting process.

Response to Anonymous' 7-10-09 - re JtComm's public hearing: "That's hardly an official or a quality vetting process. "
So what is the official vetting process? Last fall county and school staff jointly prepared a recommendation, members of both boards jointly agreed to try it out, they used it and even received public input on it and presumably are reworking it now. It's not a law, it's a process = so what more would you suggest needs to happen to be officially vetted? Another public hearing and vote by both full Boards? Should all school planning abruptly halt until an officially vetted process is final? and should Loudouners insist that be done immediately?