nightowl, are you saying we need to protect ourselves from becoming a third world colony of a greater power?

And people think I wear a tinfoil pyramid hat.

If it comforts you tho think you can redirect by claiming jealousy of McG, feel free.

I am honestly concerned about the McActivism that could place such a Manchurian cutout in a position of greater power than she posesses now.

Mr. Miller is actually the one who beat Snow in the district where I live, and he has already lost his bid for higher office (launched one year after his supervisor’s oath) in his own climb to be a suit with a vote over bigger and bigger things.

Part of the reason he lost was his gross pandering to consituencies outside of the actual voters in his district, a trait he shares with Ms. McG, along with her political climbing tendencies.

So, what WAS she lobbying for on Capitol Hill as multiple officials in her own presspack?

I’ll still make book on a personal sustainability appointment.

Barbara, most third world societies lived quite well within their means in steady state for generations until they were made colonies or clients of the developed nations, when their environments were often raped for minerals or other commodities, before their lands were farmed with export crops that pumped their rivers full of silt and chemicals, before we put beef cattle onto marginal grazing land, before our political machinations and arms sales sent millions of people fleeing their ancestral lands to save their lives. Are you just jealous that Andrea McGimsey has gotten an elected office, Barbara Munsey, is that why you are launching such lame smear campaigns against her? Because you bet your career path on Steve Snow and lost!

Well, perhaps here is a reason for the endless press being drummed up for Ms. McG, defense of same, and explanation of her presence on Capitol Hill lobbying as plural Loudoun officials over the August BoS break:

S.1619 has come out of the banking committee, thanks to Senator Dodd.  Now called the “Liveable Communities Act”, it is designed to be a federally-mandated nationwide implementation of UN Agenda 21.

Ms. McG’s work with the “grant request” that was really a comprehensive plan amendment (i.e. CPAM, those things she campaigned against) in disguise will fit right in.

Maybe we’ll get a new “Sustainability Czar” appointed under the lame duck congress if it passes, and Ms. McG CAN get a federal appointment to the staff after all?

Stay tuned!
———————————————————————
Mr. Pfotzer, it is a common game to say Delgaudio doesn’t live here, and that seems to be okay with plenty of folks.  Ms. McG owns property in Dulles that she moved out of to run in Potomac.  She was added to the deed of her listed residence in Potomac a year after she won.  Some of her “businesses” (the ones that had addresses, like when she was briefly the first executive director of Climate Prosperity) are run out of PO boxes (Climate Prosperity was two over from her campaign donations drop box), and FOIAed docs show a listing at a Potomac condo/apt that is not her government-listed address.

Who knows where she lives?

Personally, I’m a lot more concerned with what she DOES, as currently I can neither vote for nor against her.

No home address on the website, more smoke!

Where are you actually living Ms. McGimsey!

People who live near there, are saying Ms. McGimsey does not live in Potomac any more.  They think she has moved to Dulles. 

I thought a supervisor was supposed to actually live in the district???

Ms. McGimsey, are you still getting married to the man who lives in Potomac?  or is the engagement off?  and did you move out of Potomac?  The public needs the truth about where you are living, and you should come out and clarify so the “rumors’ can stop.

I stopped in to see if any new green energy ideas had been posted here. I see instead an “anonymous” person comes out with “does the supervisor live in her district”.

It takes about 2 seconds to hit the county’s website to see where she lives.

This thread might benefit, actually, from some new light bulbs. Another opportunity for green business!

Andrea McGimsey said, “She (the intern) lived at my home.”

Where is your home, Ms. McGimsey?  People are saying you no longer live in your district, that you and your former fiance broke up and he has someone else living there? 

Where do you live now?

@munsey:  good point and you have demonstrated you can count.  Of course, another way to look at it is that you are a perfectly obsessed 10 for 10 in using this thread about the green business challenge in your obsessive overpersonalized attacks on Supervisor McGimsey. 

If you fair well on the water and air testing at your place, then know there are new medications coming out even as we debate.  Pharmaceutical companies are marketing them all the time to Americans who are overweight, depressed, anxious, angry, sleep deprived, limp etc.  And there are also a lot of options out there for obsessive compulsive disorders. So,

Think about it.  Think about it.  Think about it.  Think about it.  Think about it.

Think about it.

greenday, a total of 9 comments out of 75 (now 10/76) does not make a very good argument for your statement that I have “turned the whole thread” into a vendetta against Ms. McG.

My point has always been that grautuitously promoting her has less to do with actual business than it does with her resume for continued political power climbing.

She is not the Rotary Club either, as 1) Her dealings are not always truthful, 2) Fairness does not seem to enter in to her agenda-driven actions, 3) Goodwill and friendships seem to be bargaining chips for advancement and resume buidling, and 4) they are primarily beneficial to her.

There can be any number of green activities that need not involve McG cheerleading.

Green existed before she arrived to make her career promoting herself through it, and like the planet, it will be here long after all of us are gone.

——————————————

Mr. Pfotzer, again, in the larger economic discussion, government jobs are not job creation, and government expenditure is not a productive entity choosing to invest.  It is, as you happily promote, deficit spending.

If we don’t have the money (at all levels of government) to continue to provide basic service in many cases, yet we still keep producing unfunded mandate after mandfate, while it might sound like a good plan to take the economic downtime and soend MORE that we don’t have on things like green, sooner or later it will dawn on even the McG’s of this world that there comes a point when there is no money.

Why does the third world have the worst environmental degradation?

Cut to the chase:  when people’s lives are so simple that every day is a literal struggle for survival, they really don’t have the time and energy to worry if their practices are “green”.

Let alone the money to invest in it on bad credit, to be paid off “when it all turns around”.

Any business here that wants to participate in this, cheers.

It is not synonymous with McGimsey worship, nor should it be.

Ms. Munsey:

I would be a Keynesian, I guess, if only his policies were actually followed. Keynes advocated deficit-spending to pull an economy out of a recession. He also advocated paying down the debt during boom times. If you take a look at the graphs of our national debt over the past 50 years, we seem to have forgotten the second part of the deal.

We have a lot of national and household debt to pay off, and to do that, our economy must be creating wealth. Therefore, it seems rational to direct investment toward the most productive, wealth-generating sectors of our economy. That’s self-evident.

Is government the best vehicle to direct that investment? Usually not, unless the private sector either cannot or won’t because it’s too risky.

Right now, business investment across the board is down, and it’s down because there’s not enough demand to justify expansion of capacity. This is the really awkward part of our economic situation in a nutshell. Even though the cost of money is cheaper today than at any time I can remember, investment in new productive capacity in the U.S. is unusually low. It’s high in China, but quite low here.

How’d that happen?

It happened because household incomes are coming under pressure, and borrowing is generally down because people are worried they can’t pay back the debt they already have. Incomes have been flat for years, but once the credit bubble popped, the reality sunk in, and spending hit a wall.

Consider the effect on GDP of a sudden decrease in the velocity of money, or a sudden decrease in the money supply. Both happened, and are still happening. The effects of these deflationary forces is what Bernanke (with monetary policy) and the Congress (with deficit spending - what you’re calling Keynesian economics) are fighting.

It’s entertaining, at some level, to finger-point, but there’s no way any administration would have taken a hands-off approach and stayed in power. Not with unemployment at 10% nationally, and up to 20% in some areas.

If the central bank drives interest rates to zero (and they’ve done that, quite nearly), and still no investment occurs (and it wouldn’t, under the current scenario), then our society has to make a basic decision.

Do we allow a deflationary spiral (no demand, no investment, no jobs, leading to less demand, less investment, less jobs, etc.) or do we spend borrowed money, and invest in areas of the economy that can generate jobs, hence demand, etc. and pull out of the recession.

If you’re an advocate of a bad recession, and some are, and for some good reasons, then a hands-off approach on fiscal policy makes sense.

If you are worried about an un-managed deflationary spiral ensuing if the velocity of money degrades too far, then that certainly informs one’s opinion about fiscal stimulus (e.g. Keynes).

How do you re-start an economy that isn’t investing in itself? It’s a very interesting problem…and we have that problem.

This is why stimulus spending on energy savings (generates wealth, jobs, reduces oil imports) makes some sense at this time. Saving money on energy is something people will pay for, and they can use the savings on their energy bill to pay for it with.

That creates demand. And our economy needs demand - not just any demand, but demand people can afford to pay for.

That is why I support deficit spending to invest in energy-saving products at this time.

And then, on a local level, when a government official advocates a policy the moves investment into these productive areas, and it doesn’t involve deficit spending, that’s even better. The Green Business Challenge, to my knowledge, doesn’t cost the government anything, except for the time that Supervisor McGimsey spends on it. 

So, when someone in local government can accurately connect those dots, and then actually do something insightful and effective about it, well, it’s a reasonable thing to support that person. And that is why I support Supervisor McGimsey’s actions.

I hope other Supervisors and potential Supervisors are thinking along the same lines as Ms. McGimsey.

@munsey:  Overpersonalized?  You are kidding me?  You are using that word to describe me?  You have turned this whole thread about the Green Building Challenge into your “overpersonalized” vendetta against McGimsey.  I am new to this, but why do I have a feeling that I can go find other threads where you are turning the discussion away from a good topic and towards your overpersonalized crusade against this McGimsey?

But I do want to thank you.  I have learned very quickly that this type of communication is incredibly unproductive because of people like you.  What am I doing here?  I can have reasonable/thoughtful conversations with people who want to talk about the Green Business Challenge outside of this forum.  I don’t have to get sucked into your witchhunt-obsessive rantings and ravings. 

Barbara, do yourself a favor.  Stop and think for a minute before you type.  Maybe look in the mirror before you push the send button. 
Rotary Clubs were founded by a businessman, not the government or nonprofit boogeymen.  At Rotary they have a great thing they call the four way test.  It goes like this:

Of the things we think, say or do

Is it the TRUTH?
Is it FAIR to all concerned?
Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?
Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?

Think about it, Barbara.  Good night.

greenday, where exactly did I say that I think the WWF is preventing the last rhino from being shot?  That sounds a bit chemically induced to me, actually!

Ms. McGimsey has been held up as a businesswoman, who went to MIT!, and has her own company.

Where IS her company?  There doesn’t appear to actually be one.  That’s a problem, and it isn’t mine.

What is the major problem with anyone (including me) NOT thinking that Ms. McGimsey is the bestest thing since organic whole grain bread?

As I said, she is a Potemkin exercise.  There’s no THERE there, other than paper credentials, of the kind that this editorial gratuitously pumps by gushing over her.

Why the overpersonalized reaction?

She is not Gaia, The Environment, or all of the Planeteers.

@munsey: Wow!  You have some totally bizarre ideas, lady.  And you have spent two years researching Supervisory McGimsey?  Ever think about getting a life?  Ever think that if you have been obsessed with her for two years - searching, searching, searching that just maybe there is no there there?  Want a referral on a therapist?

Supervisor McGimsey has served us well.  She is honorable.  Yes, she cares about the environment and the citizens of Loudoun County.  She did help bring the green business challenge forward.  I probably don’t agree with her on every stance, but when somebody like her is pissing off someone like you, she has to be doing something right.  If she does run again, I will send her a check and knock on doors and she can thank you for engaging me, Munsey.

Meanwhile, I gather you would fight the WWF for some hunter’s right to shoot the last rhino, or lion, or elephant.  Damn, those agencies that try to protect wildlife and habitat!

One need look only at your writing in this thread to see that not only do you not know what you are talking about.  You don’t even know what you believe.  You are more than inconsistent.  It almost seems schizophrenic:

1: “By all means, publicize and promote the business challenge, but there’s really little need to gush over Ms. McGimsey’s credentialing on the green gravy train.”

2:  “I have no quarrel with the Green Business Challenge.”

3:  Why would businesses have to jump on the green marketing bandwagon thoguh?  Why because of the success of nonproductive nonbusinesspeople like Ms. McGimsey’s success in marketing fear and loathing! 

4:We are one of the wealthiest, safest and most free (still, but changing) nations on earth, and we spend an inordinate amount of time afraid of our water, our food, our homes, our cars, our lawns, breathing, you name it.”

This is the result of a relentless marketing campaign by the grossly nonproductive:  the nonprofits, and the government.”

Do you have a quarrel with the green business challenge or not Ms. Munsey?  And do you think these big-time corporations like our very own Rehau, AOL, Verizon, Raytheon ad infinitum are so easily frightened by these green government/nonprofit conspirators and their scare tactics?  Have they all fallen victim to the “Sky is Falling” campaigns?  They wouldn’t be very good businesses if they did that, now would they?

I have an idea.  You might want to check the air and water quality in your house.  There might be some chemical reason causing you these problems.

So many points!

Mr. Pfotzer, you seem to be a Keynesian.  Certainly your right, but it doesn’t make it necessarily correct that government should interfere too directly in the market.  As with the cry “anyone who opposes Andrea McGimsey hates the earth”, I am not advocating NO controls.  But as with the environment, fiddling with discrete pieces here and there for POLITICAL reasons in complex systems creates more unintended consequences than “problems solved”.

Girard, the tax lien idea is one hell of a slippery slope.  Let’s say we mandate these things, and “pay it back” through a lien on the property?  How much property is the government going to own in a generation?  There are already programs like that for other issues, and the government ends up with the property a lot of the time.  Money off the tax rolls, and remember that creating government jobs and assets is not a real economy.

Lee is correct, much of it IS marketing.

Why would businesses have to jump on the green marketing bandwagon thoguh?  Why because of the success of nonproductive nonbusinesspeople like Ms. McGimsey’s success in marketing fear and loathing!  (Mr. P, if you can FIND her business, which truly doesn’t seem to exist anywhere in the real world, I’ll be happy to research exactly what she does with it.  I’ve been trying to do that for a few years now.)

We are one of the wealthiest, safest and most free (still, but changing) nations on earth, and we spend an inordinate amount of time afraid of our water, our food, our homes, our cars, our lawns, breathing, you name it.

This is the result of a relentless marketing campaign by the grossly nonproductive:  the nonprofits, and the government.

You could probably sell used kitty litter and urge that people spread it in their front hall as “post recycled content petro residue absorption granules”, and get some people religiously scraping their feet in it before proceeding furhter into their homes in order to remove whatever they picked up walking down the driveway to get the newspaper.  All it would take would be a mailer from WWF, Sierra, NWF or one of the other multibillion dollar organizations bent on creating a bioregionalist government under the radar of the existing one.

We’re almost there, already.

If the businesses want to participate in something “green” by doing WHAT IT ALREADY MAKES GOOD BUSINESS SENSE TO DO—save energy and other resources—have at it.

But it is primarily marketing for the religiously indoctrinated, and the most religious of the relentless self-marketers remains Ms. M.

@ Sally   I live in Ashburn. I work from home most of the time, especially during the school year.  Saves almost 2 gallons/day!

I have business friends that allow me to share a great office here and use this address, a phone, fax and meeting rooms in the Towers Crescent building.

Sorry to hear about the Sustainable Loudoun posting situation.

I agree with you on the future debt, Mr. Monk.  I read yesterday that we have already spent $708 billion on Iraq and we didn’t find even one weapon of mass destruction.  I suppose the figure has to be well over a trillion when you add in Afghanistan.  I don’t see where either of these nation building exercises has helped us, and when we depart, these countries will implode.  In fact, it is already happening.

And it is bizarre to me that our men and women are dying over there as we live it up over here.  Gov’t has asked us to sacrifice not one thing.  Instead, they just keep borrowing money from China - a Communist Regime.  We will be paying more than a little interest on all that money for a very long time.  Better start telling our grandchildren to tighten their belts right now.

“My interest is the environment for our children, their children, their grandchildren and beyond.”

And you’ll leave the subsequent billing to them as well? Just like this bankrupting Administration…we’re expected to finance Andrea’s career jump start and pad her resume on our dime, and then pay for it over the next 20 years. We ain’t as dumb as some of these folks think we are.

Girard, I seem to remember that you live in Fairfax County, from your emails/posting on the Sustainable Loudoun forum.  I used to like reading your comments, unfortunately, that thread is not really interested in any ideas except from people who think like they do, and they have not allowed me to “join” their forum or post any more….

Sad how they operate, even if some of their ideas and posters are good…

No discussion about “going green” would be complete without a few words on the subject from Rush Limbaugh.  Rush believes this is a “scam…and it’s based on a hoax.”

Here are Rush’s comments on his website dated June 17, 2008:

“Let me explain this green stuff for you.  Have you noticed that a lot of American corporations are signing on and going green?…Here’s why.  They believe two things:  One, they believe that the American people have bought into the notion that America is responsible for global warming and, therefore, America is responsible for fixing it.  And they think that since a majority of people believe it, they don’t want to fight the issue; they just want to sell products and market to people.
 
“So if they believe that a majority of American consumers believe this green garbage, then they’re going to get on the bandwagon.  But here’s the real secret.  If you are American corporation A, and you manufacture a product, it is much easier to convince people to buy that product thinking that they are doing something good for the green movement, for global warming, for pollution or whatever, and it’s much easier to sell the sale of that product on this basis rather than, ‘Hey, buy this so that our profits go up! Buy this so that our stock price goes up.’  The corporations are able to go green and sell these products on a green basis, taking themselves out of the equation.  They’re not only taking themselves out of the equation. They’re getting, in their opinion, added PR.

“So people are going to go out and buy whatever it is—a toothbrush, I don’t care what it is—that’s being marketed as a green product. It will be much easier for people to buy it if they think the profits are going to save the planet rather than to enrich the company.  So corporations love it.  You cannot assume that ‘cause all these corporations are going green, that they’ve signed onto this global warming business.  They’re just marketers, and brilliant marketers do not tell you the marketing plan. They execute it; they implement it.  There are many corporations that are actually furious with this but they’ve got no choice because their market research is saying that right now people are in the mood to buy green because it makes them feel good. So they gotta go along.  The whole thing is marketing and it’s brilliant because it’s working, but it’s a scam at the same time and it’s based on a hoax.”

First, I am a former developer. Second I really enjoy the creativity, the teamwork and camaraderie, the fun, the risk, the learning, the frustration and conflict that go along with the real estate development business.  Trying to guess what the market wants and getting it to market at the right price before the market turns or you go broke is a fantastic challenge.  So I hope my past won’t negate the following for some of you. 

Due to my experience and because I live in and love Loudoun County and all the people I meet here.  From Andrea McGimsey to Tony Howard, from my fellow committee and chamber members to my immediate neighbors, this home of ours is full of good people trying to do the right thing as they perceive it. I have started a new career as an energy retrofit project manager. I really want to preserve as much as possible the Loudoun County environment we are all blessed with.  I don’t want to see the changes that global warming will bring to our landscape. Therefore, I have a strong focus on carbon reduction but I realize that not everyone shares this concern.  However, if I can help reduce someone’s carbon emissions and improve their business bottom line a win-win is created. I have started a business for the purpose of helping small businesses accomplish many of the goals that are set forth in the green business challenge, and more, but with a first focus on costs and benefits to the client.  I have joined the Chamber, and although I work alone and out of my home, I am participating in the challenge.  If I can do it so can you.
I’ll even try to help.  We posted the Green Business Challenge with a downloadable excel spreadsheet on the County website with plenty of links to make it as easy as possible for you to access information to help choose the elements you can accomplish.  This spreadsheet will be on a continuous improvement cycle based on comments from participants.  I hope we can add more in the future, including a generic draft of a small business environmental strategy.

The really important thing is to try and the sooner the better.

In response to several points made in the chain below:

Energy projects are a tough sell in Virginia.  Maryland electricity costs for small businesses are about $0.17 per kWh and in Virginia the average is $.095.  Therefore, the same $5,000.00 lighting project I have developed in Maryland with a two year payback requires almost 5 years in Virginia.  Most small business leases just won’t allow the occupant to recoup the investment.  When you realize that lighting is often the low hanging fruit, you can see the difficulty of picking the more challenging crop.

However, even in Virginia, a home or business substituting 15 watt CFL bulbs for 75 watt bulbs will receive a payback in about 6 months, if you do it yourself.  The assumed hours are 3,366/ year, based on my local Ashburn wine shop.  So do it now.  CFL’s are also available in dimming varieties and 5,000 ⁰ K bulbs (white light).  This is a big improvement over the older 2700⁰ bulbs (yellow light).

The biggest change I would like to see us make going forward is that I would like to see PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) made available to businesses, developers and residents in any and all Loudoun County jurisdictions.  While we wait for Fannie and Freddie to resolve their issues with PACE we can work on the program. A strong example of what it could do is take the financial sting out of using geothermal systems by allowing a property owner to receive the cash for the increased cost from the tax district, the tax district then places a tax lien upon the property, the low cost loan made available through tax exempt municipal bonds can be matched to the energy savings by having a very low interest rate and as much as a 20 year repayment.  This way if the homeowner is afraid of: unemployment, moving out, moving up, job transfers, lack of cash, the next homeowner will pay for the remainder, and the next homeowner will also receive the benefit of the energy upgrade.  When I have done the cost calculations using 0% electric rate escalations the energy bill reduction matches the tax lien for a 20 year 5% loan.  However, I would expect energy costs to increase faster as carbon taxes are implemented so a better financial return is very possible.  I have read several projections for a 40% rise in electric rates in the coming years.

Budget example: on an average home, a geothermal retrofit would cost about $25,000-$30,000 and the 15 SEER air to air system would cost about $15,000.  The energy savings/ carbon reduction is about 40% per EPA ratings of a 25 to 29 SEER for the geothermal heat pump.  It’s hard to add that extra $15,000 cost to the cash outlay.  PACE funding bridges the gap and matches the investment to the beneficiary. 

Solar panels, wind turbines, improved window systems, smart homes and insulation can also be financed by the tax district.

I am working on a non-profit, MetroPACE.org, to advance this effort.  Join us in the Green Business Challenge. Join the effort to bring PACE and affordable energy and carbon reduction to Loudoun.

Sincerely
Girard Gurgick
Ashburn

The Green Energy Challenge benefits, listed above in the editorial, that contribute to Loudoun’s economic prosperity include:

Learn how to save money through increased energy efficiency.

Identify the tax advantages of capital investments that improve energy efficiency.

Saving money on energy is good for Loudoun, because we import almost all of our energy. What energy we save, less cost of capital to implement, goes right to the bottom line.

The U.S. tax code is set up to reward capital investment in energy because national policy-makers think these investments are a good idea. Why? Because it saves money for the investor, and it diverts national investment toward energy-saving capital investments, which builds new industries, which creates new jobs. What does the U.S. need, economically, more than anything else? New domestic industry.

When people say “Loudoun’s broke!”, I say to myself “who could have possibly known this was going to happen?”. Well, just about anyone that was paying attention.  We took on debt and made massive capital commitments to basic infrastructure to support a rapid residential build-up, which was in turn supported by a massive Federal expansion, fueled largely by debt. The residential expansion was another debt-fueled bubble.

Now, when that Federal build-up pauses - just pauses, it’s not even contracting yet - now our commercial sector can’t deliver huge profits, and our residential land values fall, both of which are the major pillars supporting local tax revenue.

What happens when the Federal Government stops deficit spending? Loudoun county’s fixed costs are fixed. They stay - we’re stuck with them. If the commercial sector doesn’t find new ways to make money, those fixed costs are going to be paid for by your taxes. As your property values go down, up goes the property tax rate. Whatever the commercial base doesn’t pay, homeowners pay.

I’m worried about increasing taxes. I hope you are, too. Do you agree that it’s necessary to help our local businesses compete? Do you agree that we need new lines of business to add to our portfolio?

One useful function of government is to direct the public’s attention to new opportunities for industrial development, and to create the conditions that foster that development. Tax policy, targeted grants, loan guarantees - they’re all just attention-getters. Spark plugs.

The key determinant in our society’s rate of economic adaptation is the individual’s rate of economic adaptation.

For the economic leaders of Loudoun - the CEOs and the non-CEO smart, activated, engaged thinkers of Loudoun, it’s not so much a question of “if” as it is “when”. And timing is everything in business.

When’s that “when”? Is it now?

@leej:  truly you are just way too smart for me.  I am confused.  One minute you want rich business people to run the County and the next minute you want to chide rich business people for wanting to do something good.  Are you for real or some other blogger’s poor representation of Joe Six Pack?

fleecing?????? If these big corporations really think the green thing in this particular case think it is so good how come they don’t pony up all the money??? They are just trying to not rock the boat with our current politicians and once this bos is out of office they won’t give them hardly the time of day.

I still like to know how much this going to cost. Most likely we are looking at another tax hike. ““whoops I mean tax rate hike, which apparently never raises taxes with some on this bos ha ha ha yes right???”” 

Come on implement these programs when we can afford them or get corporate world to pick up the entire bill. The CEO’s just themselves of AOL Verizon and the future Raytheon could alone pay for this out of their pockets if they really wanted to. And these companies alone do more to green their companies then any bureaucrats can ever do with our tax money.

meant condemning land

Green-Day

Our bond rating has come from less services few roads built and higher taxes every year this BOS has been in office. Now add these not necessary programs like this one at the moment. That you will not give the actual cost to the tax payers without us hunting it down. What are you hiding. Further the bond rating may not stay without raising taxes and still getting less services and about zero money for roads. Perhaps McG might start with basic services like money for roads. And I will give you a hint a new interchange at rt7 and countryside to Lerners new proposed Town Center for approval to that new town center in her district. Lets see hard hard she fights for major proffers from a major proposed project in her district. And no it will not take commending any land to build this interchange like I have heard. People around here need to think out of the box. I am sending a drawing how that interchange to the BOS how it can be built.

Lastly California is truly broke because of many projects like this green thing politicians got started with tax payer money before they could afford it.

@Mike, interesting for you.  Pretty funny to me.  Raytheon - fleeceable?  AOL - Naive?  Rehau - easily deceived?  NOVA-Medical - tricked?  One has to wonder how they ever succeeded without you.
@leej, Loudoun’s broke?  I missed that!  In fact, the last I heard, we maintained our AAA Bond rating for maybe the fifth consecutive year.  Real smart business people like the kind you want to run the county decide who gets such bond ratings.  Think about it and good luck to both of you!

One definition of the word “Green” is: “fleeceable: naive and easily deceived or tricked.”

If you replace the word “Green” that is in the phrase “Loudoun (Green) Business Challenge” with those words that are in the definition of “Green”, you get:
—Loudoun Fleeceable Business Challenge
—Loudoun Naďve Business Challenge
—Loudoun Easily-Deceived Business Challenge
—Loudoun Tricked Business Challenge

Hmmm. Interesting.

GreenDay How much money are these companies giving to run this Green Business Challenge????

Or is it just a feel good participation because they always don’t want to piss off the people in current power, until the next politician comes around.

And I know plenty of wealthy people including people that run some of the biggest companies in the America.

My point who is paying for this program in times of dire need for many. If These corporations, then where is the monetary breakdown?

Where is the monetary breakdown on this????

Loudoun is broke and taxes have gone up every year since this BOS has taken over. And don’t start the BS about tax rates.

Very simple put out in the public exactly who is paying for what.

Let’s see the break down, unless people in charge of this don’t want it to be known easily. I believe in these hard financial times for many should have full financial disclosures from proposal to finish.

Very simple and post it in the papers. Not hard to find on some government website.

If this is McGimsey’s baby and she is a public official then show US WHERE the Money is going from the start.

Right now Loudoun is broke and many are thinking already how much taxes will be affected by programs like this that can be done later when the economy gets better. This does not look like a cheap program for the county and I still consider grant money coming from this county since we also pay state and federal taxes.

@leej: you might want to read a bit more about the Green Business Challenge.  The business people that you want to run the government are voluntarily signing onto the Green Business Challenge for one reason.  It makes good business sense.  Here, again, are some of the businesses and groups mentioned in the editorial:  AOL, the Loudoun County Chamber of Commerce, RE/MAX, North Gate Vineyard, NOVA Medical Group, Rehau, Raytheon, The Restaurant at Patowmack Farm, GeoConcepts, Loudoun Interfaith Relief and Verizon.  Evidently there are already 34 businesses involved and I dare say there will be more. Some of the people that run these businesses are also very rich - just like you want it. Think about it and good luck to you!

We all want a green environment for our kids. But them having a job is even more important. Where is this money coming from??? Certainly not free to the taxpayers and if it is the grant money that is just stealing from our kids future taxes. Grants are not free. We are going into a double dip economy and possible triple dip. There are potential big defense cuts both federal and private, but they are going to happen and will effect Loudoun.

So McGimsey’s feel good programs that seem to come up every week in the papers. Well how is she going to lower taxes in Loudoun next year. These feel good programs can wait until we can afford them and our children will be able to get jobs and the children’s taxes don’t go thru the roof in the future to pay for these NOT FREE PROGRAMS. They cost money somehow.

We need business people to run this county and our country in the next elections. And rich business people would even be better to Run Loudoun and the country, because they would not need to suck of our taxes for all these so called expensive free programs. Let me repeat grants are not free, anything that comes from the government cost TAX DOLLARS. So McGimsey and some of the others on our BOS get out of your LA LA land and figure out how to pay for the essential services of this county while lowering taxes.

@pfotzer:  am I prescient or what? lol Okay, it wasn’t that hard to predict.
@anonymous:  as I said, I am not all that interested in the nasty politics as it does no good for the environment or a lot of other serious issues.  But here is my promise - if I do get involved with something that Mr. Pfotzer sets up, I will keep my antennae up for the go green groupies.  I don’t believe that I qualify as one of these. If the group he sets up devolves into nasty politics, then I will step back.  My interest is the environment for our children, their children, their grandchildren and beyond.  Good luck to you.

No need for “specific transaction data” other than the fact that Ms. McG DID bid on a solar energy project at Loudoun’s Dulles Airport—clear conflict.

And that the County paid for her to go to conferences for the Climate Prosperity Group—when she was their EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR!  Why did not her employer pay her to make the pitches? Why did Loudoun County have to pay for her transportation expenses all over the Country??? so she could build her consulting business???  When it was discovered, a lot of data has now been wiped clean on the internet??? 

Lots of money behind Ms. McGimsey, and lots of people hoping to “make a lot of Money!” (her pitch to the group she sought as clients, on video) including Ms. McGimsey…

Also Sustainable Loudoun is Andrea McG’s baby, and they simply don’t let anyone join or post with ideas that are not in lock step with the do as we say, give us federal grants, pay us a lot,  and don’t ask any questions go-green groupies (green as in $$$S?)

@Pfotzer:  well, that would be great if we could carry on this important conversation aside from nasty local politics.  Our political leaders will be here and gone, but the environment and the people it serves through clean water, air, energy etc. will be here well after we are long gone.  The better we care for it now, the better it will serve our great, great grandchildren in the future.

By the way, there are some incredibly green homes in the EcoVillage up near Lovettsville.  A number of them used structural insulated panels or SIPs (great R-value).  Another, more recent home, is of hay bale construction.  Lot of other green features to these homes too numerous to mention.  www.ecovillages.com

This stock investment strategy makes the buy and sell decisions for you so you can relax. Consider the bear market of 2008 when the market fell by over 50% by March of 2009. Stocks then went up about 70% over the next 12 months. Did most investors make money? Quite the contrary. They made poor decisions because they got scared and lacked a sound investment strategy.
Stock Exchange Updates

@Green-day: Great question. I have advocated that Sustainable Loudoun zero in how businesses can improve profits by addressing these emergent energy- and environment-related challenges facing the national economy. Sustainable Loudoun has some of the infrastructure (web page and newsgroup) in place, and I’ll see if the SL leadership sees this as a reasonable and appropriate use of their facility.

Loudoun simply could not be positioned better to become a national laboratory for economic adaptation. We have all the problems of the metropolis, and we have farmland. We have streams at risk, we’re facing massive residential growth. Our housing stock is likely to expand faster here than most other parts of the country. Houses today are built using very old designs and materials technology….all of which simply must change, and our economy offers the opportunity to develop and implement fundamentally different home-construction designs.

I have been approached by leading home-builder engineers with excellent ideas for using the capital markets to fund energy-related retro-fits and advanced housing R & D work. That stuff has to happen somewhere, why not here in Loudoun?

We have several top-notch universities in our county, each of which graduates thousands of skilled technical and managerial people annually, all of whom are looking for new long-term trends to devote their careers to. Our current commute patterns are a resource (worker time, roadway maintenance, energy-cost) train-wreck. There’s the frontier for transportation technology, and for telework. George Mason is a leader in telework, their Enterprise center has programs in place to advance this concept. It’s here, right now, and available to us as a foundational institution.

Fiscal stimulus is going to be a tough-sell going forward. Military spending is going to get curtailed, Secretary Gates has made that clear. These factors have a major potentially adverse impact on revenue for Loudoun’s business, and the nation’s as well.

Most of the advanced, well-informed economic commentators you hear tell us that the answer to our economic issues is innovation - bottom-up, small-business innovation. Loudoun needs to innovate, and we have all these great problems, and all these great resources with which to do that very innovation.

This, I hope, explains to the readers why I defend Ms. McGimsey’s actions. She gets all that, and acts on that knowledge. I am just as supportive of any other political figure, of any stripe, that exhibits these same types of behaviors.

I will give some thought to your request for a forum that’s devoted to marshaling our community’s resources around these types of innovation. We certainly have the capacity, and it seems that the interest and commitment levels are rising quickly. This is all good. I’ll have more to say by and by once I’ve done the thinking and reached out to a few leading members of the community, and gotten their input.

@Pfotzer:  Thanks for bringing this back to the Green Business Challenge where it started.  I will agree with you on all three counts even though others will likely never do so.  Aren’t their other places on the Internet to get into these other things that are totally unrelated to the Green Business Challenge?

So, we’ve established that:

a. The green energy challenge is a great idea, and makes business sense for our community to implement
b. The County’s energy plan is a must-read for local entrepreneurs that want to identify fundamental trends to position their businesses in front of
c. Supervisor McGimsey was instrumental in helping these things to happen
d. Nobody disputes item a, b, or c

Therefore, if one’s interest is to reward constructive behaviors, we should be supportive of Ms. McGimsey’s actions. They’ve been helpful to Loudoun. 

We’re still waiting for specific transaction data to corroborate any claims of unethical behavior. This thread’s been running for two days now, you’d think that’d be enough time.

@Munsey:  there are certainly times when we can look totally at the common good within Loudoun County.  However, there are other areas in which we need to look to the common good of the Metropolitan DC area.  Chief among these areas is long range transporation planning where we need to find the best common good for the entire regional area - not just Loudoun.  Just a thought.

I was a huge advocate for McGimsey back in 2007, mostly because there was abuse by supervisors occurring then, and I wanted them gone.
However—Ms. McGimsey has gone far and over that abuse when she has done things that her rival never would have entertained. Now , she’s the problem….and she has to go. I’ve gotta sixpack of whoopass right here with hers, and a couple more supervisors’s names on it. Wait for 2011.

anonymous, the only thing I would hairsplit is the common good of Loudoun, as opposed to am unspecified “common good”

As opposed to the greater good extending far and wide.

(You know the old one about an inch and a mile.)

I don’t think we can afford Ms. McGimsey’s desired resume, nor do I believe we are required to provide the wherewithall for it at her discretion.

It does not matter if she won the contract or not, she bid on it (or her Sidewalks and Cyberspace consulting company did.)  Just bidding on a contract in Loudoun County is a conflict.

And using her position as a Supervisor to obtain employment from the Climate Prosperity Group is also wrong—use common sense.  It certainly looks like it violates the ethics resolution that she asked for and signed.

We need supervisors making judgments based on the common good, not what is profitable for them personally—Ms. McGimsey does not seem to get this basic concept.

Insider, Your Honor, were you Judge and Jury for Steve Snow too?  Did you personally, through a newspaper online comment section, convict him of ethics violations and close the case on him too?  He had some flaws, but hey, we are all human.  I kind of liked the guy.

Probably I simply don’t know what kind of power broker I am dealing with in you, Insider. I’m growing concerned that I am playing with fire, here. Clearly it is time to end this, give you the last word and fade off into the cyberspace sunset.  Besides. . . you know. . . how after awhile, that bad smell doesn’t smell so bad anymore?  It’s still there, but you get used to it?  Well, here is the thing:  I don’t want to get used to it.  The toilet is all yours, Insider.  Adieu!

How original, Debate.  I was a big hero to some of you people when I exposed all the BS of the last BOS.  I’m not going to change my ways now, even if I once agreed with McG on many issues.  If this was Steve Snow doing this stuff I’d be all over him.  Wait a minute, he did and I was!  Please don’t whip out the partisan charges on me, they won’t stick.

Insider, Your Honor, I will confine my answer to three words:

BEWARE THE C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y!!!!!!!!

Getting a real job is fine, but perhaps it shouldn’t be a job she got from connections made at the county taxpayers’ expense, in a role that conflicted with the energy plan she was pushing through in her job as supervisor (for which she makes over $40 k a year doing).  She should have at least publicly announced that job, instead she kept it secret.  Even Democratic supervisors admit this was a problem behind closed doors.  Quit trying to defend it to the ends of the earth.

Hey Debate, you wouldn’t happen to be a paid McGimsey county aide would you???  Since monitoring blogs is a line item work responsibility!

http://www.tooconservative.com/?p=6398

Darn, I knew that I smelled something coming from my computer - it was you Insider!  You have declared yourself Judge, Jury and now the case is closed!  If you are on top of this thing, Your Honor, then shouldn’t we hear about Ms. McGimsey’s violations of the Ethical Code very soon?  Shouldn’t she be sanctioned by the other board members for getting a real job?  Shouldn’t this publication, as well as competitors be printing up Ms McGimsey’s egregious behavior - getting a real job - in next week’s editions? Oh, silly me!  I forgot all of the papers are part of the conspiracy too.  Excuse me now.  I have to go outside and get some fresh “green” air.

Pfotzer, I’ve given more than enough information to show that McGimsey has used her office to further her professional career, a clear violation of the Code of Ethics she signed.  Case closed on that account.  other person, I hardly ever agree with Barbara Munsey and have had tons of spirited debate with her.  But she is exactly correct about McGimsey and her methods.  You can attack the messengers all you want, but it still stinks as bad as you say I do.

debate, Ms. McGimsey can sling dung with the best of them.

Perhaps you never read any of her email updates accusing the previous Board of being in the direct pay of special interests?  No proof there, either!  Or of the FBI “investigations her “concerned citizens group” got so much mileage out of.

Defending her simply because she says “the environment” and “green” frequently doesn’t do squat for the environmental movement, in fact is part of what gives it a bad name with some.  How does that help more people want to waste less, conserve more, keep things clean?

The desired end does NOT justify any and all means.

Why do we need the Loudoun Green Business Challenge?  Based on my experience on Foxcroft Road yesterday, it’s because we have not yet conquered even the most basic elements of courtesy and environmental sustainability - no littering.

Yesterday, I got a first hand lesson in how poorly the methods we’ve used in the past to get people to be courteous of others and respect the environment have worked. I saw a soft drink can discarded along the side of Foxcroft Road.  I stopped to pick it up so the next big rain wouldn’t wash it into the drainage ditch and maybe even onto Goose Creek, the Potomac or Chesapeake Bay.

As I knelt to pick up the can, I noticed a beer bottle stuck in the grass a short ways off, so while I was at it, I picked it up too.  A few feet beyond that bottle, there was another beer bottle.  A couple yards beyond that I saw a plastic bag.  The torn, dirty bag contained the remains of someone’s lunch - a potato chip wrapper and a drink container.  The sandwich wrapper had escaped and blown across the street where it was sitting at the base of the fence, shredded into several pieces when the berm was mowed.  There was another can near one of the pieces of sandwich wrapper.  Before I knew it, I’d collected quite a pile of discarded stuff, and there was still more! 

There is a famous quote that says “be the change you want to see.”  I’d like to see a world where people do not litter Foxcroft Road.  The Loudoun Green Business Challenge can help make that a reality through employee education and community outreach.  My business, Unison Advisory Group is taking the Loudoun Green Business Challenge. I hope you’ll join us.

@Mr. Pfotzer - I have already stated that you are much more gracious than I, but I honestly don’t see the point of you spending time trying to educate Ms. Insider and Ms. Munsey.  Their’s is a view that is not to be distorted by the facts.  That said, I would consider it an honor to contribute towards a Costco-sized bundle of the greenest toilet paper as part of my sincere effort to rid local politics of their particular brand of partisan stool.  And you Democratic dung slingers watch out too as your stuff stinks just as badly.

You need to reread the thread, Mr. Pfotzer.

I made the belt notches comment first.

I saw the list of bids LI referenced, and a bid is all I ever agreed it was.  The company under which she bid it doesn’t seem to exist, so I can’t provide you with proof that it does.

You should ask Ms. McGimsey to not only disclose her company’s business (if she actually has one), but provide proof of its existence as something other than a name under which to trade in order to hide her activities.

Since no proof = no credibility.

I’ve never though she had any credibility, and have provided plenty of proof for my opinion in that regard.

Still waiting for those relevant facts about your claims of impropriety. Loudoun Insider made and unsubstantiated claim, and you seconded it with the “belt notches” remark. Now that you’ve been challenged to deliver the goods, you’re distancing yourself from your fellow-traveler.

You and your friend have had all thread to make good, and you haven’t done so.

If you are willing to make those kinds of claims - and they’re significant claims - but you can’t back them up when challenged, why would anyone believe any of your lesser claims?

No backup = no credibility.

surprised, she IS a “tireless longtime advocate” for the greater good…it would seem of herself, and her handlers.

Again, just IMO.

Mr. Pfotzer, my that was fast!  What, is the mailing list on standby for defense?  lol

Actually, I did not say “she used her influence as Supervisor to win a contract with Dulles Airport.”

I said “Ms. McGimsey has made plenty of green collecting belt notches being green too.”

And she has.

Since I did not say what you claim I did, I see no reason to try to prove it for you.  What I have done is verify that I saw her fake company listed as a BIDDER on an MWAA project while the BoS was in discussion with MWAA over a land use project.  And that the list of bidders was removed from the MWAA website when LI publicized it.

I could provide you with the dead link, but it would tell you “page not found”.

Her “decisive action” was based, in my opinion, on using grants to create credentials for herself, and more expenditure for the rest of us.

Her job description here is not a national responsibility, but I have no doubt that she’d like to continue to use her job here to get a national appointment.

In my opinion, yes, she is purely a Potemkin project.  Defend her as you like, it does not change her documented methods of fabrication and inflation—which are not unrelated at all.

Barbara and Loudoun Insider:

You made a claim that Ms. McGimsey used her influence as a Supervisor for her personal benefit. You said that she used her influence as Supervisor to win a contract with Dulles Airport.

I asked you to provide the specifics of the transaction. What contract, awarded by whom, on what date, and what influence Supervisor McGimsey applied to win the contract.

Barbara, that last message you posted was an awfully long list of irrelevant information. There was not one fact provided to support your claim of unethical behavior. Not one.

So why do I defend Supervisor McGimsey? Because she identified a problem (Loudoun’s patterns of energy use) that is a microcosm of our nation’s pattern of energy use, and she took decisive, productive steps to educate our community about this problem. She got our county about $2 million in Federal stimulus funds - one of the very few sensible uses of the stimulus funds - and used that money to help Loudoun’s entrepreneurs see not just how we use energy now, but how we can use that knowledge to make money in the future.

You didn’t say anything about that in your remarks about why we should not give her any credit.

Am I a dogmatic “green” supporter, unable to sense for and address the shades of grey? Consider this: I was strongly supportive of the Green Energy Partners project (natural gas fired power generation facility to be located just south-east of Leesburg). Ostensibly, as a “green” advocate, I’d not support such a “big business” “conventional fossil fuel” operation stuck right in the middle of our Transition zone.

I supported it because natural gas is less polluting than coal (where we get almost all of our electricity currently), because the facility brings tax revenue and jobs to Loudoun and because the GEP project management pledged to integrate locally-produced bio-fuels into the plant feedstock if and when the local bio-fuel economy develops over the next few decades.

The plant isn’t all that great now, from an environmental perspective, but it has the potential to become a significant contributor to Loudoun’s energy strategy in years to come.

The analysis that I contributed to, in conjunction with Green Energy Parners, the Rural Economic Development Council to formulate Sustainable Loudoun’s position on the GEP plant drew heavily upon information contained in none other than…the County Energy Plan that Supervisor McGimsey championed…and got money to from the Federal Government to fund.

Here’s a supervisor that understands fundamental long-term trends, spots opportunities, brings people together, gets the facts on the table. Then she shows Loudoun entrepreneurs how to make money solving environmental challenges. All those actions are examples of superior governance.

And your response to that seems to be “how dare she take these actions when she’s got no energy background” and “how dare she do business deals in the energy sector - she’s a supervisor after all”.

I support Supervisor McGimsey’s actions because she did useful things for our county. My suggestion for her critics is to try to do something nearly so useful, and I’ll support you, too.

Very interesting stuff here.  I’m no big fan of blogs or Barbara Munsey but they raise very troubling points here.  Andrea McGimsey certainly seems to be more about furthering her own interests and earning potential than being the “tireless longtime advocate” lauded in this editorial.

Mr. Pfotzer, you may have to go the library to find some of the proof that will satisfy you, or to internet archive sites that retrieve dead webpages.

LI is correct about the MWAA bid for solar panel installation.  It was submitted under her “internet consulting firm”, listing her home address.  It can no longer be linked for you, because after LI wrote a story linking to it, the bid page was removed from the MWAA site.  At the time the Board was in discussion with MWAA over location of the Route 606 metro stop, but I’m sure that is only a coincidence and not a conspiracy.

Her “internet consulting firm” is also a bit of a search.  It is still mentioned here in an article about her campaign for supervisor (for which she moved to be able to run):  http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-9683710.html The only problem seems to be that the SCC has never heard of it.  She does not disclose anything having to do with her “company”, which she probably should, if she is merely “trading as” that entity, in which case it is legally indistinguishable from herself, especially if it (briefly) appears as a bidder on an MWAA contract while the public body on which she sits is in discussion over a land use decision with that body.

The only reference I’ve ever been able to find to “sidewalks and cyberspace” in relation to Ms. McGimsey is her old biography on the PEC website:

“Andrea McGimsey is the field director for eastern Loudoun County, working with her suburban neighbors to craft a positive future for our communities while protecting our natural resources, rural economy, and historic treasures. She came to PEC through her work on the Campaign to Save Courtland Woods and years of citizen activism in eastern Loudoun. Andrea is a graduate of MIT and holds a masters degree from NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts in interactive media. Her professional experience in digital and traditional media span the corporate and nonprofit sectors from producing The Wall Street Journal CD-ROM to professional stage work at Shakespeare & Company. PEC’s new sidewalks & cyberspace strategy came out of Andrea’s five years of experience working in interactive marketing and strategic development at America Online and her training with the Wellstone Foundation. Andrea is a former member of the Sterling Volunteer Fire Department, where she was
awarded Administrative Member of the Year in 2003 for raising $80,000 in FEMA and corporate grants. Andrea performs 18th century dancing with the Living History Foundation and has appeared in the August Court Day Trials in Leesburg.”

It would appear that her “company” is the netroots/interactive marketing project she was paid by the PEC to develop in 2004, IOW the Campaign for Loudoun’s Future.

(As a side note, that is what her expertise really is—interactive marketing, and I would suspect that her MIT degree has much more to do with that than mechanical engineering or applied physics.  I find it amusing that “MIT” is supposed to be treated as a conversation stopper in defense of Ms. Mcgimsey’s actions.  I imagine when you are in a group and someone calls George W. Bush an idiot, just saying “Yale” would reverse that immediately, eh?)

As to her paid work by PEC, throughout 2004 and into 2005 she denied being paid.  She was just a concerned citizen activist, growing a coalition of the like-minded.  Her major project (aside from attending every board meeting and complaining tearfully that she was being slandered by those who took bribes themselves! who claimed she was paid to care) was the standard presidential election year petition run by PEC.

Those who went to the polls claimed PEC had nothing whatsoever to do with the petition—it was all the Campaign for Loudouns Future.  Nevermind that the maps they were using as a display board were developed and printed by PEC (for display purposes only—accuracy not guaranteed.  Standard disclaimer).

The petitions took months to submit (see “Petition Turned Over to Board, Sort of”, by Dusty Smith & Megan Kuhn, Leesburg Today 2/10/2005, available only at the library now), but there were 11, 12, 13, no 14, 15!K “Loudoun voters” on them.  It was just taking so long because she was just a volunteer who cared, and she had to be sure that there were no duplicates or invalid addresses, and everything was accurate.

I bought a copy of that petition for about $66 when it was finally submitted in 2005 at a dog and pony (actually sheep and guitar) show at a public hearing.

As I submitted to the BoS in the public record in March, the “petition” was a copy of strips of paper pasted to sheets of paper, consisting of columns of names, and columns of zipcodes.  Many sheets had no petition language on them.  As such, it was not a valid petiton, but Ms. McG said she had to “protect” the people who were courageous enough to sign, from the corrupt BoS.

There were 12,350 filled lines on the cut and pasted strips, including some children’s first names in what looked like crayon, and some scribbles.  Of those 12K names, the Catoctin rep to the library board signed it 9 times.  The recently retired Loudoun field office for the PEC signed it twice, under two variants of their first name (full and nickname), at their home and PEC office zipcode.  The current Loudoun PEC field officer signed it three times, under their home and office zip, using three variants of their name(original spelling, current usage, and nickname).  A current sitting BoS member signed it 3 times.  A former planning commssioner signed it twice.  Those are the notable duplicates, but there were others.  My personal favorites?  John and Mary “Citizen”.

Of the strips of zipcodes that she had checked to insure valid addresses, 5 were exclusive to Fairfax county, 4 exclusive to Prince William, 3 from West Virginia and Maryland, 1 from Washington DC, 4 unassigned by the USPS anywhere in the US, and 1 from Ohio.

I would suggest to you that the months “vetting” the “petition” on which she made her name (while lying about being paid to do so) were spent with stacks of unrelated petitions, scissors, and gluesticks.  However, you can find many articles treating it as very real in the press, some by the same Washington Post reporter who crafted the FBI stories also so useful in her campaign(s).

As for lying about being paid to develop the netroots group and run the “petition”, the staff bio I quoted did not appear until mid-2005, when the PEC had to file their tax forms for 2004.  The 2004 990s show Ms. McGimsey was listed in the number one spot under “Five Highest Paid Employees” category, earning $61,657.00 in direct compensation, and $3,083.00 in benefits and deferred compensation.  You can verify that by joining Guidestar for free.

The Climate Prosperity Project is interesting in that when she was taking our supposed “grant request” (energy policy) on the road for personal benefit (http://novatownhall.com/2009/12/09/video-of-andrea-mcgimsey-in-delaware-giving-presentation-on-climate-prosperity-project/  “who wants to make money being green?  Raise your hands!”) she was listed as their Executive Director, but recently the group announced their FIRST such individual, and removed Ms. McG, as documented by LI and other bloggers.  Odd.

I have no quarrel with the Green Business Challenge.  My objection is to the gratuitous aggrandizement of Ms. MgGimsey.  I can understand you being here to defend her for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that as always, she sent a link to the Sustainable Loudoun mailing list.  Her membership there has been very useful to her in supplying talking points to members for public input on her projects, and public comments such as in this and other papers in support of her.

You have every right to defend her and feel good about being green doing it, but I would imagine as someone concerned with green, you’d like to know that what you do actually benefits something real, as opposed to a Potemkin person?

Perhpas, perhaps not.  But having documented multiple times on the record her various fibs and outright lies, as well as watched her resume grow via PO boxes and news credentials from her own manufactured press releases, I would say the onus is on you to prove that she is actually above all reproach if that is to be your position.

And “MIT” is not an olly olly oxen free on that one.

Here’s a link to that Code of Ethics:

http://www.loudoun.gov/controls/speerio/resources/RenderContent.aspx?data=f41f6b26ec9d442c8a7d22b9128b63a0&tabid=312&fmpath;=/Code

Please tell me how that job (and her using the Loudoun energy plan as a prop for that job) doesn’t violate #8, especially the bolded “professional” gain clause.  And isn’t it fascinating that she never made this job public, and that the group is now touting its latest Executive Director as its first ED.  What’s to hide???  I know this inconvenient facts mess up the carefully crafted McGimsey self promotional agaenda here, but too bad.  She dished all this type of thing out before (and I absolutely agreed with her then) but can’t stand the same treatment when she does the same thing.  Hypocrite.

Give me a break - I am not partisan with my criticism of self-serving politicians.  This board’s own ethics pledge says that supervisors shall not use their positions for personal or PROFESSIONAL gain.  That last bit was put in by this crew after they all rightly criticized Steve Snow for getting a job with Dietze construction having no prior construction experience.  McGimsey was one of the people leading that charge, now she does the same exact thing.  Remember the Journey Through Hallowed Ground funding mess???  After McGimsey railed against every effort of the last BOS to speed up development processes, she put through a funding request for JTHG that bypassed the usual funding process, becasue it was the right thing and she had all the facts.  To hell with process.  It’s a blatant double standard.  I know she’s your hero, so keep on defending her, but it’s hypocrisy at its worse.

@Loudoun Outsider: A most articulate, detailed argument, and I totally agree with Mr. Pfotzer.  He is also much more gracious than I.  Your baseless charges are full of crap - the same partisan crap that makes people hold their noses over the state of our political process.  Do your part.  Go to the bathroom.  Wipe your butt.

To Loudoun Insider:

I’m responding to your specifics. In sum, I’d say they’re not very specific, nor germane. Details follow below.

You said:  Andrea McGimsey came into office with no professional credentials concerning energy. 

I say: To my knowledge, none of incoming Board members had background in energy efficiency at the point they took office. Not relevant.

You said: At her urging the BOS paid money to join Climate Communities, where, by her own admission on video, she met the people behind the Climate Prosperity Project. 

I say: This is not relevant nor surprising. The supervisors are expected to explore, to meet, to learn, to develop views and policy based on new learning. So far, this is appropriate behavior.

You said: She was then named Executive Director of CPP, where she co-mingled her new found profession and her supervisor duties. 

I say: if she developed/established a professional role within CPP, why is that a problem? A supervisor job is part-time, it is expected, customary, and appropriate for a supervisor to have a second job. If it’s in the energy industry, that is a good thing, right? And what are the facts about this “commingling”?

You said: All the while spending significant county monies to attend conferences on energy issues. 

I say: perfectly appropriate. Our supervisors are directing policy for a county with a $billion-plus budget, it is advisable and reasonable to attend conferences wherein our supervisors are interacting with the best and brightest in areas of interest and utility to the county. We want our supervisors to get the maximum amount of knowledge in the shortest possible time, and conferences are efficient and effective means to achieve that goal.

You said: She then somehow became proficient enough in solar power project installation to go after a solar power contract with Dulles Airport,

I say: Ms. McGimsey graduated from MIT, which is one of most demanding and therefore prestigious technical institutions in the nation. It is not surprising that she was able to absorb significant technical information in short order. This is one reason she was elected.

You said:  ...while participating in decisions pertaining to Dulles Airport, located in Loudoun County, as a supervisor. 

I say: You did not name the specific transaction. You did not indicate that her involvement in Dulles Airport decisions had any material relationship with any energy-related contracting efforts she was party to. Dulles airport is very nearly a city unto itself, with several departments, several initiatives, and literally dozens, maybe hundreds of contract actions pending at once.  To make a comparison, many of our past supervisors have been realtors, with real estate decisions to make at nearly every turn. Are you suggesting that those supervisors should suspend their commercial actions as a realtor during their tenure as supervisor? Of course you aren’t. Why are these two circumstances different?

You said: There’s a start on the facts for you.  After wailing about the bona fide conflicts of the last BOS, she is now doing the exact same thing, except for the “right” causes.

I say: Your facts are not germane to your claim. You imply that her behavior is unethical, but you didn’t show any instance where her status as supervisor was used to improperly influence any commercial decision made by any entity, Dulles Airport or other, in order to benefit Ms. McGimsey. Instead you seemed to say:

a.  She wasn’t an energy expert, but attended conferences as a board member to educate herself about energy. What’s wrong with that?

b.  She met, and subsequently took a position with CPP. What is wrong with her taking a position with an entity that’s engaged in the energy business?

c.  She was party to a contract proposal to Dulles Airport. So?

d.  You imply that her status as supervisor was used to influence Dulles Airport’s contracting decisions. Which contracting decision? What was the transaction, who was the contract award decision-maker, and what influence, as Supervisor, did Ms. McGimsey apply to win or influence that deal? Those are the relevant specifics that you did not supply. And because you didn’t supply them, I doubt those circumstances exist. Do they exist?

You said: It still stinks to use your county position to further yourself professionally, no matter how worthy one may think the cause is.

I say: That is, as yet, a baseless accusation, made anonymously (you didn’t give your name).

So, unless you can supply the details - the transaction, the parties to the transaction, the circumstances that demonstrate inappropriate behavior, I say your remarks are groundless.

I see no reason, yet, why anyone should pay attention to your claims.

It will be interesting to see how many of these green initiatives are cost-effective.  I’m sure a smart business person will consider all costs and factor in the time value of money, which is something that is often left out when green activists perform their own cost-benefit analysis.

I think it’s a good program, and I am all for energy efficiency and being more green.  I just can’t stand hypocrites and someone asked for specifics, so I gave them.

Barbara and Loudoun Insider, not everything is a conspiracy. This challenge seems to be something that’s garnering wide-spread support. Instead of using every opportunity to attack the people involved, why don’t you look into the substance of the program, in this case the business challenge. I’d suggest to Barbara and LI to put your anger to use on something other than a program that’s being touted by the Chamber and the environmentalists.

@T there are some good thoughts in there.  On the one hand I would encourage you to take care comparing a local green business initiative in Loudoun to something as significant as the anti-trust efforts at the turn of the century.  The former is akin to the idea of acting local as we are thinking global.  It is also voluntary.  The government had to step in on a national level on the latter.  It was anything but voluntary for the corporations involved.

On the otherhand, I think you make a very good point.  I can see a scenario here were a local homebuilder/developer joins the green business challenge and green’s it’s offices. At the same time, it is mowing down Loudoun trees and digging up Loudoun pasture - hundreds of acres. In the place of this forest and pasture the developer builds hundreds of 5,000+ sq ft homes with the minimum insulation, energy inefficient windows, lawns that will require chemical treatments and water, fire places and many other features that exponentially overwhem the green changes of their office operations.  In fact, it likely overwhelms the green savings of the combined participants in the Green Business Initiative.  Will this developer be held up along with all of the other innovative Green Business Challenge success stories because they were leaders in terms of greening their office complex?  If that scenario comes to fruition, it will be tough for this reader to have much respect for the Green Business Challenge.

Tom, Andrea McGimsey came into office with no professional credentials concerning energy.  At her urging the BOS paid money to join Climate Communities, where, by her own admission on video, she met the people behind the Climate Prosperity Project.  She was then named Executive Director of CPP, where she co-mingled her new found profession and her supervisor duties.  All the while spending significant county monies to attend conferences on energy issues.  She then somehow became proficient enough in solar power project installation to go after a solar power contract with Dulles Airport, while participating in decisions pertaining to Dulles Airport, located in Loudoun County, as a supervisor.  There’s a start on the facts for you.  After wailing about the bona fide conflicts of the last BOS, she is now doing the exact same thing, except for the “right” causes.  It still stinks to use your county position to further yourself professionally, no matter how worthy one may think the cause is.

All very enlightening, but what I do not see, is true accountability in this effort.  For example, are we to look only at the surface claims of the companies, and their “green” effort?  I saw the Board of Supervisors fall all over themselves concerning a power plant, that had the smarts to put the word “green” in the name, and it worked.  That’s all it took!  It’s a power plant, guys, in a region that is way behind in EPA standards on air quality.  If government is going to allow itself to be fooled like that, this effort is worthless.  Imagine where we would be now, if the changes made in the 1890-1900 concerning business and monopolies had not occurred.  Good things can happen, but you have to be smart about it, and not be tricked by a title that includes the word “green.”

@LookingForward:

That is one excellent comment. I’ll respond for me, and I don’t advocate this for others, it’s a personal decision.

I see this planet, and my race that populates it, at a decisive point in our evolution. I know that my economic actions are currently having an adverse impact on the planet, and that’s has an indirect but inexorable negative influence on fellow-travellers’ prospects in the long term.

I realize that many people don’t already share this view. They may over time, and they may not. Maybe I’m totally wrong - it is possible, and I have to allow some emotional space for that possible fact.

With all that as backdrop, I know there’s a certain baseline logic that appeals to all, and that’s economics. So I speak to the general public in economic terms, which is the common language of all political stripes.

But many of the things I do, in my own space, when I’m using my money, and doing things according to what I want, I do “just because” it’ll help the planet. Sometimes it’s “uneconomical” to do that. Buying solar panels today, for many applications, is “uneconomical” in the short run. However, every solar panel bought today reduces the incremental manufacturing costs of tomorrow’s solar panel, so I might buy one today just because I feel it contributes to tomorrow’s solution. It’s an emotional decision dressed up in economic language.

The emotion is that I love my planet, love my people, and am willing to do what’s best for them instead of what’s economically best for me in the short run.

So, that’s the best job I can do to explain how I make the leap from the emotional to the rational via economics.

Last point: humans are irrational, emotional creatures. We start with what we want, then search about for some logical-sounding thing that justifies what we want.

It’s annoying, but I think that’s more true than not most of the time.

Again, great comment.

@lookingforward: I apologize for the imprecise language I employed.  What I attempted to do (poorly, it appears) was to make the point that a business owner shouldn’t implement any practice, policy or system without an accurate justification of the costs and benefits involved. 

That is not the same as stating, as you did: “... that NO business should ever adopt a green practice unless it results in a net gain to their bottom line - either directly or through PR.”  It only means that you should do your homework first.  If you don’t, how would you know if this “green business” practice is the most effective, or even effective at all. There may be something else out there that would just as effectively reduced your energy consumption/carbon footprint/environmental impact, or had the same benefit for less time, energy or money. 

A successful business owner and executive will apply the same disciplined, analytical approach to adopting an environmentally sustainable business practice as they would to any other business decision. That way they will achieve the environmental benefit desired, while improving their efficiency and profitability. 

Hope that boosts your morale.

To Tony, who says, “An environmentalist true believer will hate to hear this, but NO business should adopt any type of “Green Business” practice unless they can justify the return, even if it comes in public relations value.”  First, I should probably ask your working definition for evironmentalist true believer, but I will go ahead and weigh in.  In all honesty I find this statement the most demoralizing thing that I have read in this thread.  And I don’t consider myself as some rabid environmentalist - far from it.  So, what you are saying is that NO business should ever adopt a green practice unless it results in a net gain to their bottom line - either directly or through PR?  NO business should ever engage in a green practice that results in a little less profit even if it would benefit the environment now or in the future?  Correct me if I am wrong, but the absolute only reason to operate green is to save your company money?  And does it continue that a business owner who goes green in a way that results in a small reduction in overall profit is a bad business owner?  If your answer to any one of these questions is, yes, then understand that it is your business true believer approach that makes people cynical.  If, at the end of the day, it all comes down to economic self interest, the environment will lose.  Humanity will lose.

@Mike: A good and thorough list and I agree, to a point.  A business or other enterprise would have to be a significant size and complexity to make it necessary to adopt even half of these measures, and so they would be able to achieve far greater cost savings/efficiencies, thus achieving a greater ROI, and achieving it quicker, than your average small business.

@Tom Pfotzer: Your checklist of questions to ask before adopting even one energy saving/environmentally sustainable measure is spot on.  An environmentalist true believer will hate to hear this, but NO business should adopt any type of “Green Business” practice unless they can justify the return, even if it comes in public relations value. That assumes the PR value exceeds the investment costs - hopefully by a factor of two or three.

From the Chamber’s perspective, the Green Business Challenge is about helping our members and other businesses gain access to the resources and expertise that will help them determine the true costs and benefits of implementing environmentally sustainable business practices, so they can make an accurate cost-benefit analysis.

Those costs all seem likely, and they are a good inventory of them. Thanks for posting them.

As a businessman, I would ask:

a. Which energy-saving strategy is right for my situation
b. What is the return on investment (cost savings or incremental revenue I’d get from that investment, annually)
c. What is the payback period (how many years before my investment is recouped from new revenue or cost savings)

I would pick the green strategies that gave me a return on investment that was greater than my capital cost.

I would pick the green strategies that had a payback period of less than 5 years (that’s my preference, you criteria might be longer or shorter payback periods)

I don’t need software to compute the payback period on a new type of light-bulb. If I know how long the light is on, and the power the old bulb and the new bulb require, I know gross electricity savings. Then I compare lifecycle costs of the bulb itself - how often to replace, and cost of replacement.

If electricity-savings and maintenance-savings are both positive, I install the more advanced light-bulb, assuming it meets my investment-return criteria set out above.

No software required.

As I said before, tomorrow’s business person is going to have to walk and chew gum at the same time. It isn’t the “green” “liberal” people that will impose that ethic.

It’s Mr. Adam Smith and his friend Charles Darwin. Adapt or die.

Amen, Mike.

It will be interesting to learn how much in costs that companies will actually “save” by following this guidance because it looks like companies will have to make a significant monetary investment up front just to initiate this program. 

Here is a list of some of the people, equipment, software, written plans, etc. that each company will have to buy/pay for in order to implement this program.  The guidance doesn’t specify the actual cost of each of these items:

—Salary to be paid to a new Energy Officer.
—Salaries (or, perhaps just Overtime Pay?) to be paid to an Internal Green Team (note: the guidance does not say how many people need to be on the green team)
—Labor Costs to create and publish a formal Energy Strategy & Improvement Plan
—Labor Costs to do an assessment of current energy consumption.
—Costs to educate employees about the need for resource conservation (cost of training rooms,  instructional materials, instructors)
—Costs to develop and adopt a Green Purchase Policy
—Costs to develop a carbon emission inventory of the facility
—Cost of “Energy Star Energy Portfolio Manager” software
—Cost of “energy accounting” software (unless you use EPA’s free tools)
—Costs to install renewable energy technology such as solar, geothermal, wind, etc.                            —Labor costs to replace 20% of your incandescent lights with compact fluorescent light bulbs
—Costs of new compacts fluorescent light bulbs.
—Cost of workshops to educate employees on green topics, current events, company policies/practices (cost of training rooms, instructional materials, instructors)
—Cost of stickers to remind staff to turn lights off
—Labor Costs to installing water-conserving faucets, toilets, and dishwashers
—Cost of water-conserving faucets, toilets, and dishwashers
—Labor costs to remove and replace inefficient energy appliances and equipment, to modify computer and printers/copiers to power saving mode, to remove and replace ducts, insulation, roof, and windows
—Costs to purchase new appliances, ducts, insulation, roof, windows
—Costs for recycling collection service
—Cost to change thermostat settings to ASHRAE Standard 55
—Labor costs to install and costs to buy motion sensor switches or timed lighting
—Labor costs to install, and costs to purchase, bicycle racks and to build, if necessary, showers for the employees who ride their bikes to work
—Etc.
—Etc.
—Etc.
—Etc.

Barbara Munsey:

You said: “Ms. McGimsey has made plenty of green collecting belt notches being green too.”

Please cite specifics. How has Supervisor McGimsey benefited economically from championing green policies here in Loudoun?

No claims, no bluster. Identify the transaction: who the parties were, and the dollar amount, and the date, and what was exchanged.

I don’t believe you’re going to be able to respond with facts. Until you do, I’m calling this as I see it: a politically-motivated baseless attack. I resent politics being the reason we trash people in the public space who try to do something smart and helpful.

You’re so scared that somebody whose politics you don’t like might actually get credit, you’re willing to denigrate good ideas and the people that brought those good ideas into the public realm.

This is exactly and precisely what I despise about politics, and it’s the primary reason that our national politics is broken. Please keep your bile to yourself until and unless you can substantiate it with facts.

Our U.S. economy, and Loudoun in particular is now competing head-to-head with people around the world whose labor rates are a small fraction of ours.

They can do nearly everything we can do. We are not smarter than them, and increasingly, we don’t have better equipment than they do.

From this point forward, every dollar we spend on energy - or any other resource that is sourced on the world market - is a dollar that isn’t available to spend on labor. Your labor.

Getting green isn’t optional any more. As our economy flirts with a double-dip recession, it’s the efficient companies that will be paying raises, or maybe just continuing to issue paychecks.

So green isn’t “extra cost for tree-hugging”. Green is efficient. Dollars not spent on resources are available to be spent on labor.

Every business in Loudoun that adopts the Green Business Challenge is opting to stay in business, opting to adapt, and opting to better the labor market for your services.

And yet some of you folks are criticizing these companies for doing so? You’re criticizing your government for encouraging these businesses to do smart things that benefit you?

Those criticisms, to me, reflect a fundamental lack of situational awareness.

One more thing. Up till now, we’ve been told that “if you want to make money, you have to trash the environment”.

I am able to walk (make money) and chew gum (preserve my environment) at the same time. I tend to pay closer attention to people who can recognize that some problems are complex, and one has to do two things at once in order to succeed.

Conserving energy and resources made good sense long before green became trendy (or religious).

Ms. McGimsey has made plenty of green collecting belt notches being green too.

By all means, publicize and promote the business challenge, but there’s really little need to gush over Ms. McGimsey’s credentialing on the green gravy train.

She has been sufficiently costly at the local level;  the paper should evaluate the potential responsibility of helping her climb higher on the resume ladder.

Excellent comments from Tony Howard, president of the Loudoun Chamber of Commerce, below.  To directly address the tax question, the Loudoun County Green Business Challenge was created by an intern from MIT who worked for free in my office and worked under my supervision.  She lived at my home for free during her internship.  She worked with several local businessmen, including Tony and a CEO of a local company, to create the challenge; they volunteered their time.  Many business people, through the Loudoun Chamber of Commerce, have stepped up to move the challenge forward with volunteer work.  We are using a small part of a federal grant to support implementation of the challenge. 

I am delighted that so many businesses are taking the Green Business Challenge, including the Loudoun Times Mirror and Indie.  As Senator John Warner used to say, taking care of the environment is about two words: science and grandchildren.  Loudoun is becoming known as a leader in the nation in the growing economic sector of clean energy.  The Green Business Challenge is great for our reputation and for the businesses participating.  Going forward, we will be able to share best practices to save energy, save money, and increase the bottom line of our local businesses.

I don’t want to be so cynical, but I need a lot more reason than the Green Business Challenge, this editorial and the President of the Chamber of Commerce telling me to not feel the way I do. Does the Washington Post story yesterday - about MMS and the Oil Industry - not inspire some cynicism about business/economic interests and the environment?  How about the BP oil spill?

How many green points can a company get if it stands up for the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance right now?  It has been instituted in Fairfax County for 20 years.  Their economy seems no worse for having participated in this noble environmental effort.  Why does the Chamber and local business have such a problem with protecting and improving our water quality in Loudoun County?  What a wonderful leadership opportunity for businesses that truly want to demonstrate their green credentials. 

At the end of the day very short term profits and losses dictate most business practice.  Despite good intentions by many respectable business leaders, it is profit that is the driving force.  The state of the environment even 100 years from now is not nearly as important as the quarterly earnings statement.

So, now that I have been honest and shared more about my cynicism, I will very likely encourage my corporation to join the Green Business Challenge . . . if you will have us.  One has to start somewhere even if they are legitimately cynical.

Fellow posters: please drop the cynicism.  This program is about elevating the discussion about how environmentally sustainable business practices are also sound business practices.  There simply is not enough recognition that green business practices are much more than expensive, feel-good efforts.  It is also about the recognition that access to clean, affordable and reliable energy is one of the most important challenges facing American businesses. The only aspect of this issue that most businesses can control is the amount of energy they use, and the Green Business Challenge is an attempt to help businesses in Loudoun meet this great challenge head on.

I wonder how much this is costing the taxpayers?

Mkelly, I agree with you.  Every green thing that we do today benefits the planet and all future living organisms contained there-in.  That includes our decendents for many years to come.  Of course, there is the argument that we should use as much as we want right now and our descendents can deal with the fallout later.  It’s the ultimate in selfishness. 

Operating green should be as natural as breathing.

We (people) were given this planet, so being environmentally friendly “should” be on the front burner of every organization and not require “recognization”

I guess we (people) will never change.  Live by the dollar; die by the dollar