One way to overcome the dishonesty of Sandra Glenney and CPS is for Loudoun County to adopt an “open file policy“. An open file policy is a policy in which the County would be force to share all evidence with the accused. This is no guarantee that Glenney would behave in accordance with the policy but if she or CPS were caught hiding evidence it could result in negative consequences for them such as sanctions or they could be found in contempt. As it stands now, the evidence released is up to Sandra Glenney; don’t expect to much. Glenney is free to hide all the evidence she feels necessary to win her case. If by some bizarre chance, the CPS worker aspires to be honest, Sandra Glenney will ensure that those aspirations are stifled.
When one is accused, he or she is at the mercy of the CPS investigator, the investigator’s management team and of course Sandra Glenney. They dictate what will happen; this is a very frightening proposition. They dictate the pace of the proceedings and in some cases they dictate the behavior of the Judge. It is frightening simply because everyone involved in the investigation is incredibly incompetent and in Glenney’s case simply dishonest. An open file policy would offer some type of protection the accused and hopefully produce a fair hearing.
The integrity of CPS is always in question , the workers and their management team are not trustworthy. Using the example of Benjamin Smith, ex-CPS worker in Loudoun, workers are supported even while being dishonest during a Local Hearing as Benjamin Smith was. He violated every aspect of his guidelines and yet remained employed. The integrity of Loudoun County CPS is always a concern.
The Guardian At Litem, which will be appointed to the case, will not conduct an independent investigation; as required by law. Most Guardian At Litem’s will simply endorse Sandra Glenney and the CPS workers. As an example, Lorrie Sinclair failed to conduct the most basic investigation , she simply followed Glenney’s lead. An open file policy will help overcome the incompetence and antipathy of the Guardian Ad Litem.