Editor: I read with considerable interest the legal explanation offered by County Attorney Leo Rogers in defense of his client, Supervisor Tony Buffington, claiming in good lawyerly tones that Supervisor Buffington’s numerous text messages sent to his board colleagues during their deliberations on the Harris Teeter application were non a violation of the Freedom of Information Act’s open meeting requirement because they were not “willful and intentional.”
County Attorney Rogers does a good job of getting his client off the hook. His efforts could easily earn him a job with the Hillary Clinton campaign; they could use a man with his skills.
But here is my question that you don’t need a lawyer to answer: Were Supervisor Buffington’s action s in the best interest of the “open and transparent” county government Chairwoman Phyllis Randall promised us back in January?
David C. Halgus, Ashburn