See if you can follow the logical arc here:

Newly elected supervisor Janet Clarke makes an embarrassing gaffe right out of the gate, getting her board-mates to “fire” the Blue Ridge representative on the Economic Development Commission (only to find that, since his term isn’t actually up until the end of the year, the board action is null and void. Awkward.)

Why the retribution? Because of (in the words of Leesburg Today, not Clarke) “his public criticism of the Purcellville Town Council over its efforts to build the final segment of the town’s Southern Collector Road through a portion of Crooked Run Orchard.”

The truth is that EDC member Steve Mackey has the integrity to stand up for the David in this conflict, against the Goliath that is Clarke’s Purcellville Town Council. He shares what happened when he tried to reach out to then-candidate Clarke here, and Crooked Run Orchard owner Uta Brown explains what the Town is doing to them and other small businesses here. It’s pretty obvious that this is unethical political payback of exactly the sort a code of ethics is meant to address.

Clarke’s rationale for her vindictive action is that commission members like Mackey should be held to a standard of conduct described vaguely as a “positive approach to the community.” She further told the Leesburg Today that Mr. Mackey’s testimony in defense of Sam and Uta Brown’s property rights “brought to light ‘a need for a code of ethics for various county boards and commissions.'”

But wait! When it comes to a code of ethics for the Board of Supervisors itself, Clarke and her colleagues suddenly find it unnecessary (“all about show”), and claim that their good ethics are “implied.” So, while board members will still be subject to state laws regarding disclosure and conflict of interest, they will not pledge to conduct themselves in a courteous, respectful manner, uphold the “highest moral principles,” and fairly represent all residents of the county regardless of personal characteristics or affiliations. Such a code of ethics is, contrary to their assertions, enforceable, and could be used to impose real consequences for, say, Eugene Delgaudio’s penchant for lying and abusing constituents. As noted above, Janet Clarke’s own conduct toward Steve Mackey would be in violation of any reasonable code of ethics, so I suppose we shouldn’t be too surprised by this arrogant move: A code of ethics for others, enforceable at capricious whim by the board, but no code whatsoever governing their own behavior.

Understandably, people find this collective refusal to sign a code of ethics offensive and suspicious. If you intend to behave decently and act in the best interests of all Loudoun residents, why would you object to saying so, especially when such a pledge is standard? So this apparent hypocrisy has not been received well by the public.

Not to worry! One of the appointees to the brand new Government Reform Commission – the same activist who for some yet-to-be-discovered reason is always the first to defend or minimize Mr. Delgaudio’s most egregious behavior – has appointed for herself the task of publicly explaining Why This is Different, even seeming to argue that if a private citizen is critical of an elected official, they have by definition called the other private citizens who voted for that official stupid, immoral, unenlightened, wrong and evil. Maybe there should be a code of conduct for citizens instead! (That would fix her pesky Delgaudio problem, but I was under the impression there was supposed to be government reform, not reform of the citizen’s freedom to criticize government.) Anyway, the board members were APPOINTED by the voters (the argument goes), so they don’t need a code of ethics to keep ’em in line; the voters can just vote for their opponent next time.

What an odd and strained argument. Seriously, the difficulty of removing an elected official from office for anything short of a felony conviction makes the need for an enforceable code of ethics more critical, not less. Then again, I’ve seen the same person regularly making a related, and equally laughable, argument both before and after the election. To paraphrase, the morality of an elected official is assessed simply by whether they won the election; if they won, that somehow “proves” that the criticism of their behavior is invalid (this only applies, obviously, to those elected officials whom she supports). This is pure postmodernism, (ironically) of the sort Christian nationalist Chuck Colson would condemn. It requires a bizarre leap of illogic, but it’s been planted so many times on so many public forums that it has to be taken as deliberate framing for any criticism of the new board.

At any rate, remember that (since we apparently have license to be very creative with language here) there are multiple ways of “voting” for and “APPOINTING” those who deserve our support. One way is to patronize these small local businesses whose owners have been targeted. Call it a buycott.

Steve Mackey, Notaviva Vineyards
Sam and Uta Brown, Crooked Run Orchard

And rest assured, we’ll keep our eyes open for any conduct unbecoming a resident serving on boards and commissions.