In response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the Real Advocate political action committee, Loudoun County officials released an eight-page complaint Wednesday filed in March by former county aide Donna Mateer against Supervisor Eugene A. Delgaudio (R-Sterling.)
The complaint, first cited in a Washington Post report in September, includes allegations that Mateer spent the majority of her working hours this year making phone calls to schedule fundraising meetings to benefit Delgaudio’s political campaign.
Mateer also accused Delgaudio of creating a hostile and abusive working environment.
The Real Advocate PAC had already obtained copies of the complaint from Loudoun Commonwealth’s Attorney James E. Plowman (R) and Arlington County Commonwealth’s Attorney Theo Stamos (D) before the county also agreed to release the document at a hearing Wednesday in Loudoun District Court, said Stevens Miller, executive director of the PAC and a former member of the Board of Supervisors.
On Oct. 3, the supervisors voted unanimously to retain an independent firm to conduct an investigation into the allegations against Delgaudio.
Delgaudio has consistently denied the accusations and maintains that his fundraising efforts were strictly to benefit a youth football league. Loudoun policy prohibits political activity on county time or using county resources for a political campaign. Delgaudio did not respond to a request for comment Thursday.
The Real Advocate PAC also submitted a FOIA request for documents that Mateer provided to supervisors Chairman Scott K. York (R-At Large) soon after she was fired in March. Among those records were fundraising spreadsheets and e-mail records related to her allegations.
Before the board’s Oct. 3 vote, York noted that a copy of Mateer’s complaint was given to Plowman for review several months ago. Plowman, in turn, referred the matter to Stamos, who did not recommend pursuing charges, York said.
Stamos told The Post that she was sent a copy of Mateer’s statement but did not receive any supporting records or documents.
York has since said that Mateer had not yet provided him with the additional records at the time that the complaint was forwarded to County Attorney Jack Roberts.
Roberts sent Mateer’s complaint to Plowman for review March 16, according to records obtained by The Post.
When York did receive the supporting records from Mateer in late March, the additional documents were not forwarded to Roberts, Plowman or Stamos, York said.
York said that he had asked Mateer for copies of the records for his reference.
“The question is, did the commonwealth’s attorney pick up the phone and call” Mateer? he said in an interview. Mateer “has all the original documents. The question is what a commonwealth’s attorney would do if they are going to take a complaint and look at it. Wouldn’t they follow up? I’m not a prosecutor; that’s their job.”
In an April 25 e-mail from Plowman to Roberts, Plowman reported that Stamos had not deemed the issue “a fruitful endeavor to pursue.” But he noted that Stamos could review additional information if it became available.
“Should you come upon additional information which might materially change the situation, I will ask [Stamos] to consider it, or you may contact her directly,” Plowman wrote.
Plowman and Stamos declined to comment on the matter.
The documents in question have since been turned over to Roberts, who will give them to investigators retained by the county, York said.
York said Thursday that Roberts was probably within days of hiring a firm to conduct the investigation.
Miller has repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of the board’s investigation.
“There is no document that specifies who is being investigated, and for what,” he said.
He noted that the county initially refused to provide Mateer’s statement because the material was considered to be under active investigation.
“The only effect of their so-called investigation is to deprive the people of information,” Miller said.