Last night, the City Council of Gaithersburg voted to approve a six-month contract with outgoing County Council Member Mike Knapp to develop a strategic plan for economic development and marketing.
According to the City Council resolution authorizing the contract:The City Strategic Plan establishes that we will actively pursue economic development programs and strategies. Based on input from the Mayor and Council, the business community, members of the public, and City staff, we are seeking to refine our strategy in the short-term by retaining a consulting firm to assist in the following general areas –
1. Business Outreach and Consultation
2. Policy Considerations
3. Economic Development Strategic Planning
4. Website Content Development
It is possible that the firm will also be involved in evaluation of finalists for the Economic Development Director position.
Mike Knapp has formed Orion Ventures as a vehicle for returning to his former career as a technology consultant and business development executive. He will be leaving the Montgomery County Council at the end of his current term. The proposal focuses on refining our economic development strategy, improving communication efforts with existing businesses and potential prospects, and establishing guidelines and criteria for evaluating economic development opportunities.
Staff believes Mr. Knapp possesses a unique combination of business development skills (including access to and contacts within the local business community) and local government leadership experience. As such, we are requesting that his proposal be treated as a sole source.
The base term of the contract is for six months (11/01/10 to 04/30/11). There is a provision for extension upon mutual agreement. The fee for services is $12,000 per month, plus expenses not to exceed $1,250 per month, for a base contract maximum of $79,500.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Mike Knapp Awarded Contract by City of Gaithersburg
Friday, August 13, 2010
Mike Knapp Endorses Nancy King
Outgoing County Council Member Mike Knapp, whose upcounty district significantly overlaps with state legislative district 39, has endorsed Senator Nancy King. Following is King's press release.
PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release:
August 12, 2010
COUNCILMAN MIKE KNAPP ENDORSES NANCY KING
Montgomery Village, Maryland – Citing Nancy King’s strong record of focusing on local quality of life, Montgomery County Councilman Mike Knapp today endorsed her campaign for the State Senate.
“Nancy King makes a difference for her friends and neighbors in Montgomery County,” said Councilman Knapp. “As a local official, I can count on Nancy to go to work on the County’s behalf in Annapolis. She fights for our fair share of school construction dollars and brings back hundreds of thousands of dollars for local projects that improve our quality of life.”
This term, Nancy King helped secure $100 million for local school construction projects. Since joining the Senate in 2007, she secured $850,000 for local projects, including the Cinnamon Woods Environmental and Safety Lighting Upgrade, RCI Group Home Renovations, the Montgomery Village Martin Roy Park Pavilion, the Lake Whetstone Hillside Stabilization, the Gaithersburg Upcounty Senior Center, the Northgate Homes Lighting Upgrade, and the Plum Gar Neighborhood Recreation Center.
“I work with civic leaders and local officials to identify our community’s priorities, and I bring back the state resources we need to fulfill those needs,” said Senator King. “Working together, we have accomplished a great deal for the communities of the 39th district.”
Nancy King has been endorsed by state and local leaders, including Governor Martin O’Malley, Montgomery County Executive Isaiah Leggett, School Board President Patricia O’Neill, State’s Attorney John McCarthy and Sheriff Ray Kight. She has earned support from leading advocacy groups, including the Montgomery County Education Association, Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 35, International Association of Fire Fighters Local 1664, Maryland / DC AFL-CIO, NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland and Equality Maryland.
She serves District 39, which includes all or parts of the communities of Montgomery Village, Hadley Farms, Washington Grove, Flower Hill, Germantown, North Potomac, Darnestown, and Derwood.
# # #
Friday, July 23, 2010
Mike Knapp Endorses Craig Rice
Outgoing Upcounty Council Member Mike Knapp has endorsed Delegate Craig Rice (D-15) as his successor. Following is Rice's press release.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 21, 2010
Contact: Steven Goldstein, 240-393-0200
Knapp endorses Craig Rice
Rockville, MD – At an intimate meet-and-greet event in the offices of Loiderman Soltesz Associates, Mike Knapp quelled rumors and publicly and formally endorsed Craig Rice for the County Council seat representing District 2. It had been speculated whether Knapp would actually endorse a successor and apparently wanted to wait until the field of candidates was clear.
“When you look at the council and the folks that are running…I think it’s going to be very important to take someone with Craig’s background in Annapolis and consider his ability to listen to the folks he represents…and that, is what distinguishes him from the rest of the field,” said Knapp. “When you look at this race, there are four opportunities for it to go in the wrong direction and one opportunity for it to go in the right direction and that is this gentleman right here, Craig Rice,” Knapp continued. “He represents the future of Montgomery County and with him on the Council, we will continue to move Montgomery County forward.”
County Executive Ike Leggett, who endorsed Rice along with Governor Martin O’Malley, was in attendance, and sang Rice’s praises as well. “I look at Craig as a Stephen Strasburg,” said Leggett. “We have the opportunity to bring in a young guy with tremendous talent and a bright future, or we can turn back the clocks. I’m betting on Strasburg and that’s why I want Craig Rice on the County Council.”
Rice has tallied a landslide of endorsements including the executive branch of MD Government, nearly all State Delegates and Senators and almost every group that has endorsed candidates including SEIU, MCEA, B-CC Chamber, GCAAR, Progressive MD, NOW-Montgomery County, AFL-CIO, ATU Local 689, Montgomery County Youth Slate, and the Housing PAC of Maryland.
###
Friday, July 09, 2010
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Mike Knapp Will Not Seek a Third Term
District 2 County Council Member Mike Knapp, who has served since 2002, has announced that he will not be running for re-election. Following is his press release.
County Councilmember Mike Knapp Announces He Will Not Seek 3rd Term
Montgomery’s District 2 Representative Will Pursue New Efforts To Promote Life Sciences, Job Growth in Washington Region
ROCKVILLE, Md., June 8, 2010—Montgomery County Councilmember Mike Knapp (D-District 2) today announced he will not seek re-election to the Montgomery County Council. Councilmember Knapp, a resident of Germantown, has held the District 2 seat, which serves the Upcounty region, for two terms.
“Over the past eight years, I’ve had the honor and pleasure of meeting and getting to know residents across the Upcounty region. With our beautiful farms and cutting edge industries, the Upcounty is one of the most diverse and productive communities in the state, and I’m pleased to not only represent this unique region, but also to call it home,” Councilmember Knapp said. “I appreciate your continued faith in me as I complete my term in office. I hope I’ll continue to merit your confidence and your willingness to work together to address our community's issues.”
Knapp, a biotechnology consultant and former business development executive at Celera—renowned for its groundbreaking research in mapping the human genome—will be working with the Washington Region's leading biotechnology firms, academic and research institutions and the financial sector to develop and implement strategies to increase life science activities in our community.
“We have unparalleled life science assets, but as global competition has increased, our efforts have not kept pace,” Councilmember Knapp said. “As the economy begins to recover, now is the time for us to proactively establish a strategy to overhaul K-12 science and technology curriculum, improve technology workforce development, increase academic research efforts and collaboration, and increase investment in emerging technologies and companies.
“We can and should lead the nation in the commercialization of research to transform how we improve human health. I am very excited to help lead the efforts in our community to make this goal a reality.”
First elected in 2002 and reelected in 2006, Councilmember Knapp presently serves as the chair of the Council’s Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee and as a member of the Education Committee. While Knapp primarily focused his efforts on government accountability and fiscal responsibility, he is even prouder of helping accommodate the day-to-day needs of the Upcounty.
“Some of my proudest accomplishments are those that tend to get the least attention,” Knapp said. “Whether it’s new stoplights in Montgomery Village or near the Damascus Recreation Center, connecting fragments of sidewalks in Germantown, getting fire stations in Germantown and Clarksburg or ensuring that facilities like the Olney Skate Park or Germantown Library finally got built, these are the things that directly impact the daily lives of residents. I’m pretty proud of that.”
Knapp was chief sponsor of the legislation to reform the fire and rescue service, worked to reduce the county's homeless population, increased access to technology education and led the efforts to pass three groundbreaking master plans for Germantown, White Flint and the Great Seneca Science Corridor. As the representative of the district containing the majority of the County’s 93,000 acres of the Agricultural Reserve, Knapp worked to ensure that farming remains a viable part of the county’s overall economy.
Previously, Councilmember Knapp chaired the Council’s Education Committee, served as a member of the Public Safety Committee and chaired the Homeland Security Committee. Knapp served as the Council president in 2008 and as its vice president in 2007. Since 2002, Knapp has served on the Board of Directors of the Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments, including one term as its chair. He has also served as the County's representative on the Maryland Association of Counties Legislative Committee.
###
Friday, April 23, 2010
Council Member Craig Rice?
The HOTTEST new rumor circulating through the cloaked ranks of the spies is that District 2 (Upcounty) Council Member Mike Knapp will not be running for his current seat again and that Delegate Craig Rice (D-15) of Germantown will make a try for it. We asked Delegate Rice about this yesterday and here is his on-the-record quote:
“I have no comment at this time but will be able to address the question on Monday evening.”
Folks, this rumor has longer legs than Stacy Keibler!
If Rice ran for Rockville, that would be the biggest surprise so far in the 2010 election season. It also puts the question of Knapp’s future squarely on the table. He could be headed for big bucks in the private sector. He could also be running for a different office.
Like maybe… County Executive?
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Sleeping Giant Stays in Bed
Last month, we ran a four-part series on the policy and political implications of the Gaithersburg West Master Plan. We asked whether the issue was a “sleeping giant” and speculated about its impact on the 2010 at-large County Council race. The recent approval of a compromise master plan on an 8-1 vote changes things considerably.
The final weeks leading to the vote were pressure-packed. The City Councils of Rockville and Gaithersburg came out against the plan and opponents threatened dire consequences if it was passed. But supporters picked up their game and flooded the council with emails in the last days before the vote. Looming over everything was the budget, which threatened to push the issue to the back burner.
Just before the vote, six Council Members broadly favored the provisions in the plan: at-large members Nancy Floreen, George Leventhal and Duchy Trachtenberg and district Council Members Mike Knapp (who is the Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee Chair), Valerie Ervin and Nancy Navarro. They could have jammed it through over the objections of the remaining three. But that risked creating an election issue and damaging the council’s ability to work together on the budget. So Knapp began exploring ways to pick up more votes – and most critically, earning the support of Phil Andrews, who represented the area. Could the six supporters move enough to get Andrews on board?
One new piece of information that made a difference was a council staff memo on potential build-out under the plan. The original plan allowed 20 million square feet of commercial space provided that all of the supporting infrastructure (including the Corridor Cities Transitway) was built. County Executive Ike Leggett proposed allowing 18 million square feet and several Council Members shared that view. But developers seldom max out every square foot on their properties because of financing constraints, problems with securing tenants and issues with architecture and engineering. The staff found that if the limit was set at 20 million square feet, developers were likely to actually build only 14.7-16.2 million square feet. The existing master plan from 1990 allowed 13 million square feet with no staging tied to infrastructure. This information gave the council flexibility to adjust the density since neither 18 million nor 20 million square feet would have actually been built under any circumstance. So the ultimate compromise provided for 17.5 million square feet plus concessions on allowable congestion and improved staging – just enough to get Andrews and Roger Berliner to come on board. Only Marc Elrich refused to go along.
Andrews did what all good legislators do. He staked out his position, accumulated some leverage, won some concessions, struck a deal and defended it. Knapp did what all good committee chairs do. He provided lots of opportunities for input, negotiated patiently, and built a consensus to win as many votes as possible. And Council President Nancy Floreen did what all good presiding officers do: clear out one contentious issue before moving on to an even more contentious issue (that being the budget). For all the criticism of its dysfunction, here is an instance when the County Council worked well together and arrived at a fair solution.
OK, maybe we should not overdo it. Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg put out a press release claiming credit for the deal hours after the vote even though she had little role in working it out. Welcome to election season, folks.
Given the lopsided vote and the support of Phil Andrews, it’s hard to see where the opponents go from here. The plan is done. It is not going to be repealed or modified in any major way. No amount of electoral activism will change that. Marc Elrich will pick up some votes in the Gaithersburg precincts and perhaps win a few of them. But because the County Council was able to find a compromise, the sleeping giant rubbed his eyes, yawned, rolled over and went back to bed – probably through the election.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Where are the District County Council Challengers?
We have written extensively about the At-Large County Council race. But what about the District County Council elections?
Sadly for us but happily for the incumbents, there’s not very much to report.
At first glance, it should be easier for challengers to overthrow County Council incumbents in the county’s five districts for one simple reason: it is cheaper to run in a district than at-large. But that has not helped recent district challengers. The only two district incumbents who were thrown out in the last two cycles were Republicans unseated by Democrats: District 1’s Howard Denis, who was defeated by Roger Berliner in 2006, and District 2’s Nancy Dacek, who was defeated by Mike Knapp in 2002. All of the Democratic incumbents who were challenged won.
Here are the Democratic primary statistics for all district seats held by Democratic incumbents from the last two cycles.
2006 Cycle
District 2 (Upcounty): Incumbent Mike Knapp vs. Sharon Dooley
Vote Percentage: Knapp 63.8%, Dooley 36.2%
Contributions: Knapp $213,547, Dooley $16,339
District 3 (Rockville/Gaithersburg): Incumbent Phil Andrews vs. Bob Dorsey
Vote Percentage: Andrews 75.9%, Dorsey 24.1%
Contributions: Andrews $98,298, Dorsey $25,570
District 4 (East County): Incumbent Marilyn Praisner vs. Mike Jones
Vote Percentage: Praisner 79.9%, Jones 20.1%
Contributions: Praisner $52,326, Jones filed no reports
District 5 (Silver Spring/Takoma Park/Kensington): Open Seat
2002 Cycle
District 3: Incumbent Phil Andrews vs. Bob Dorsey
Vote Percentage: Andrews 53.6%, Dorsey 46.4%
Contributions: Andrews $75,173, Dorsey $68,072
District 4: Incumbent Marilyn Praisner vs. Steve Joseph
Vote Percentage: Praisner 80.2%, Joseph 19.8%
Contributions: Praisner $27,739, Joseph $42,942
District 5: Open Seat
Averages, District County Council Seats Held by Democratic Incumbents, 2002 and 2006
Vote Percentage: Incumbents 70.7%, Challengers 29.3%
Contributions: Incumbents $93,417, Challengers $30,585
The only competitive district race in the last two cycles was incumbent Phil Andrews’ 2002 win over Bob Dorsey in District 3, which includes Rockville and Gaithersburg. Dorsey was a Rockville City Council Member who ran as part of County Executive Doug Duncan’s End Gridlock slate. Andrews survived twelve(!) pro-Dorsey mailings and numerous negative attacks in part because he was endorsed by MCEA. (My, how times change.) None of the other challengers had any significant institutional support. The only Democratic district incumbent to lose in 1998 was District 3’s Bill Hanna, who was driven out by none other than Andrews.
The winning recipe for district incumbents is straightforward: pay attention to constituent service, earn the support of community leaders around the district, wrap up important endorsements and raise more money than the opponent(s). All of that sucks up the oxygen needed by any challenger. At-large elections are more complicated since they are four-person round robins. Lots more factors count in those contests, including incumbent-on-incumbent rivalries. Both the 2002 and 2006 races featured one open at-large seat and one defeated incumbent, producing two at-large freshmen.
Currently, the district races do not look as interesting as the at-large contest. No incumbent has a confirmed challenger yet. Here’s what we are hearing.
District 1, Incumbent Roger Berliner
East Bethesda civic leader Ilaya Hopkins is exploring a challenge. We sized up this potential race last month.
District 2, Incumbent Mike Knapp
Knapp may not run for re-election. If he does, he may face civic activist Sharon Dooley again. Dooley lost to Knapp by 28 points in 2006. If Knapp does not seek to return, Gaithersburg/Germantown Chamber of Commerce CEO Marilyn Balcombe and Dooley seem certain to run, and there may be other candidates.
District 3
We reported rumors that former Rockville Mayor Larry Giammo was a possible candidate for this seat a year ago, but have heard nothing since. Phil Andrews may run unopposed.
District 4
Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19) is still smarting from his special election loss to Nancy Navarro in the spring of 2009. Kramer never conceded the race and never endorsed Navarro against Republican Robin Ficker. He may seek to challenge Navarro again. If so, he will likely be supported by at-large incumbent Duchy Trachtenberg, who lost her chance to become Council Vice-President in 2010 and Council President in 2011 because of Navarro’s election. The last Navarro-Kramer contest was a bitter affair culminating in multiple negative mailers by Navarro against Kramer. A rematch would see no quarter given by either side.
District 5
Incumbent Valerie Ervin has no rivals on the horizon. She could very well be a kingmaker in the at-large race. Many suitors will no doubt seek her support.
If anything changes, we’ll be sure to let you know!
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Knapp Proposes Budget Summit
County Council Member Mike Knapp has proposed a "budget summit" for this year's grisly $608 million cut-and-slash fest. Normally, the budget proceeds through a slow and sequential process. The Superintendent of Schools develops his proposal for the Board of Education, which votes on it and forwards it to the council, and the Executive Branch department heads work with the county's Chief Administrative Officer to develop the County Executive's proposal, which also goes to the council. The council then holds hearings, moans in the newspapers, bickers in their offices and plays chicken until the last day or two, whereupon releasing the documents of woe to the cringing outside world. Knapp would instead like to gather the entire council, the school board, the Executive and his department heads, and even the public employee union leaders in one room to work it out all at once. No one would be allowed to leave until a deal is done. Knapp promoted the idea in a Gazette op-ed and issued a press release outlining it that we reprint below.
County Councilmember Mike Knapp Proposes ‘Budget Summit’ to Resolve Montgomery’s Fiscal Year 2011 Shortfall
Key Decision-Makers Should Be Assembled for ‘As Long As It Takes to Complete a County Budget We Can All Agree On’
ROCKVILLE, Md., January 28, 2010—Montgomery County Councilmember Mike Knapp, chair of the Council’s Planning, Housing and Economic Development (PHED) Committee, has asked his fellow Councilmembers and County Executive Isiah Leggett to consider holding a “budget summit” to help solve the County’s budget shortfall for Fiscal Year 2011, beginning on July 1.
Councilmember Knapp said the key budget decision-makers in the County should gather and not leave for “as long as it takes to complete a County budget we can all agree on.”
The Office of Management and Budget is projecting that the County must close a budget shortfall of approximately $608 million to achieve a balanced budget, required by law. However, Councilmember Knapp said that constantly changing factors have made it difficult, under the current system, to determine how much money will even be available for County government to spend on programs and services.
“As we each begin our work on the FY 2011 budget—struggling with the most significant fiscal challenges that any County Executive or County Council has faced—I think it is important to recognize the limitations of the current budget process,” Councilmember Knapp wrote in a memo to the County’s other elected officials. “Reports from every industry and level of government indicate that the status quo will no longer work and that we must take new approaches to be successful in the future. We have to recognize that while a budget could probably be cobbled together doing the same old thing (which has almost always resulted in more spending than the previous year), it won’t address the broader structural changes that we must address on behalf of our residents.
“I’m proposing instead that we work on the operating budget together, from the beginning, in the same room, working from mutually agreed upon numbers, and then crafting budget alternatives together. In short, I’m proposing a budget summit . . . that lasts as long as it takes to complete a County budget we can all agree on.”
Councilmember Knapp said a successful budget summit would involve all facets of County government; the County Executive, the County Council, the Board of Education, heads of agencies, directors of departments, union representatives and employees.
“Typically, each government element legitimately advocates for the best deal that it can receive and spends most of its time in the budget discourse defending what it has proposed,” wrote Councilmember Knapp. “This year’s crisis demands that everyone first understands the scope of the problem. Reality dictates that there is no ‘best deal’ for anyone out there. All of the choices before us are serious, and we need to select the ‘least bad’ options.”
Saying that, “It is important that no one feel out of place,” Councilmember Knapp proposed that the summit take place at a site away from the County’s offices, perhaps at the Universities at Shady Grove.
The summit would have two major purposes, said Councilmember Knapp. It would “determine and agree upon the specific assumptions that are the basis for the budget, including the amount of revenue and other resources available to fund the operating budget.” He went on to say, “Once we’ve agreed on the magnitude of the problem and those areas that are still not yet known (state aid, for example), we’d work together to craft scenarios that can meet these numbers.”
Councilmember Knapp, who worked in the private biotech industry prior to his election to office, said the collaborative effort could produce solutions that cannot be achieved through traditional budget-process channels. “Our final budget will not be something that is ‘done to’ government departments and agencies, but instead would be ‘done with’ them, with their input. If we all own the process, then we can all own the outcome.”
Councilmember Knapp suggested a scenario that would start with all attendees discussing the overall budget revenue expectations so the group can determine how much of a shortfall must be addressed.
“Once we know the nature of the math problem we’re facing, we can break into smaller groups to work on specific solutions,” he said. “Each group could, for example, develop its own proposal—and each of these proposals would be submitted anonymously back to the full group for consideration.”
Councilmember Knapp said the mechanics of a summit are open to discussion, but he is confident a new approach would produce results.
“I am convinced that a fundamental change in the way we craft our County budget is needed to overcome our current budget crisis,” he said.
# # # #
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Primaries to Watch Update, Part One
By Marc Korman and Adam Pagnucco.
All right everybody, it’s time to update our intel on the most interesting actual and potential primaries in Montgomery County that we are watching. Just like last time, Marc and Adam are going to co-write this mini-series. New information has prompted us to reorder our rankings of the most compelling races.
Off the list: District 14 Senator Rona Kramer vs. Eric Luedtke
Prior rank: Second
Marc
This race drops off the list because the challenger, Eric Luedtke, has decided not to run. Luedtke, a teacher and activist, began raising money and making the rounds. He was expected to mount a challenge against incumbent Senator Rona Kramer from the left on issues such as the death penalty. But going against a self-funding incumbent was an expensive proposition and Luedtke decided not to take it on. Expect to see his name on the list of potential candidates in District 14 for a long time. Full disclosure, I donated to Luedtke’s campaign.
Adam
Luedtke is not running against Kramer, leaving the county’s most anti-labor and anti-environment Senator safe. Difficulty in raising money was one of the big reasons why Luedtke opted out. This illustrates a growing problem in state and county politics: a candidate must increasingly be independently wealthy, incredibly well connected or have lots of rich friends to have a shot at office. Luedtke, an outstanding progressive activist and a winner of our Young Gun awards, had none of those advantages. But just like Marc says, Luedtke will be a player in county politics for the foreseeable future.
10. Council District 2 Maneuvering (Rumored)
Prior rank: Off the list
Marc
Near the top of the list of Montgomery County political rumors that will not die is the future of Councilman Mike Knapp. Each month brings a new rumor that Knapp is retiring, running for County Executive, or running for reelection. If he hangs it up, Gaithersburg-Germantown Chamber of Commerce Marilyn Balcombe is almost certain to run. Sharon Dooley, who ran against Knapp in 2006, is a potential candidate whether there is an opening or not.
Adam
Mike Knapp could make a lot of money if he returned to the private sector, where he founded multiple businesses. It must also be really tempting to leave Rockville’s Drama Queens behind for a saner life. But Knapp might not be done with politics yet. His ten-point Economic Development Strategy looks like a policy platform for a County Executive race and set tongues wagging when it was released. It’s also entirely possible that Knapp will run for his current seat again. Knapp just held a fundraiser at Loiederman Soltesz Associates in Rockville, so he is keeping his options open.
Marilyn Balcombe will not challenge Knapp if he runs for re-election, but I expect her to run if he leaves. Civic leader and MPW contributor Sharon Dooley, who lost to Knapp by 28 points in 2006, might get in no matter who is running. There’s no reason to believe that Knapp is vulnerable if he wanted to return in District 2. But if he left for whatever reason, the race to succeed him would be wide open.
9. District 39 Open Delegate Seat (Rumored)
Prior rank: Ninth
Marc
The potential State Senate race in District 39 will be discussed later in the series, but if Delegate Saqib Ali runs for the State Senate, he will leave behind an empty Delegate slot. Bob Hydorn, President of the Montgomery Village Foundation Board, has given early indications he will run if there is an open seat or not. If there is not an open seat and the current incumbents run as a slate, there is likely to be no movement here. If there is an opening, more candidates could take a look at the race. Delegate Kirill Reznik, appointed to the seat in 2007, needs to work hard because he has not run before. Full disclosure, I serve as District 39 Delegate Kirill Reznik’s campaign chair and voted for him in the 2007 Central Committee appointment process.
Adam
Central Committee Member Shirley Rivadeneira has everything it takes to be a dynamic candidate. She is a well-spoken, super-smart, appealing young Latina with great progressive credentials. But she would have to resign her job at the U.S. Department of Labor to go to Annapolis, so her candidacy in the event of an open seat is not guaranteed. Furthermore, she will not challenge a united slate.
Bob Hydorn is much more inclined to run. His dislike for Saqib Ali creates the possibility of a challenge even if the incumbents all run again. Hydorn would have to raise money, pick up endorsements and gain exposure outside Montgomery Village to have a shot at knocking off an incumbent. That’s easier said than done in a bad environment for fundraising.
If the slate sticks together, I don’t see the incumbents as particularly vulnerable – not even appointee Kirill Reznik. Reznik has compiled a voting record that is consistent with his district and is working to build a base of support. Appointees who do those things usually return to Annapolis.
8. Reggie Oldak vs. District 16 (Rumored)
Prior rank: Eighth
Marc
When Reggie Oldak ran in 2006, she was an underdog competing against a close partnership of Delegates Marilyn Goldwater, Bill Bronrott, Susan Lee, and State Senator Brian Frosh. Oldak came in a strong fourth and scored the endorsement of the Washington Post. Ever since she was not appointed to succeed Delegate Goldwater, the rumor has been that she would run for the seat in 2010.
Some view Delegate Bill Frick as vulnerable because he has not run before, but he has also been working the district very hard and raising money. Delegate Bill Bronrott has not recorded a contribution since 2006, though his January finance report may tell a different tale. He has also been an active player on the Purple Line and if he chooses to, has a lot to crow about with the project heading to the Federal Transit Administration. Delegate Susan Lee had a balance of over $100,000 last January and has continued fundraising all year.
If Oldak gets into the race, she will certainly be a serious candidate. But she may find herself facing the same dynamic as 2006, a close slate that has not given their constituents any reason to vote against them. Full disclosure, I am a Central Committee Member for District 16, voted for Bill Frick in the 2007 appointment process, and have donated to him.
Adam
This race is all talk and no action. Reggie Oldak does not appear to be doing anything to put together a potential Delegate challenge at the moment. And none of the incumbent Delegates look vulnerable. The only drama here is whether superstar-in-the-making Bill Frick finishes first. Wouldn’t “Pick Frick” be a great election slogan?
We’ll cover four more races in Part Two.
Friday, December 04, 2009
Drama Queens of Rockville
Following is the transcript of the nominations, discussion and election of the new Council President on Tuesday and an editor’s note.
Marc Elrich
I’m happy to nominate my colleague and friend, Roger Berliner, for the office of Council President. I’ve had the pleasure of working with Roger for three years now and I see Roger as the best possible candidate in the worst possible year. Roger brings to this office, I think, a commitment to work with all of the Council Members and to further communication and cooperation among all of the Council Members, which I think is going to be critical as we face what is sure to be a daunting fiscal challenge. Hard times often lead to enormous amounts of stress and, I think, Roger is one of the most unflappable and calmest people that I’ve had the pleasure of working with. And I think that is a quality and a skill that will be really needed in the next council.
We need leadership without regard to factions or groups and what I see in Roger is that his words and deeds qualify him for that role. From the beginning, his M.O. has been to strive to bring people together and I’m confident that if he’s our Council President he’ll bring us the leadership we need so we do all come together. There’s long been a council precedent that the previous year’s Vice President succeeds to be President and I see no reason not to continue that tradition and certainly no reason has been offered why we should not. Three years ago, I supported Mike Knapp to be Vice-President and two years ago I supported him for President. I didn’t do that because Mike was a member of a faction. I did it regardless of political differences because I recognized that he was both capable and qualified for the job. More importantly, I think I and my colleagues recognize it was more important to move beyond factionalism, particularly as the challenges we faced deepened. And I think the council is well-served by that decision.
In the same spirit, I nominate Roger, not because he is a member of a faction. And I think realistically, what do factions mean when 90% of the votes on this council are unanimous? And when they aren’t unanimous, you’d be hard put to figure out how the five-member majority or the six-member majority ever got put together out of the factions which are more fluid than real. I think Roger is a person we can trust, that we can trust him to work with all of us, and that he will put the good of the county above all else. And that in these difficult times is what I think we need from a President. And with that, I am happy to put his name in nomination.
Phil Andrews
Thank you Council Member Elrich. Council Member Ervin’s light was on for the previous comment, so before I call on Council Member Knapp, lust let me recognize that Joan Kleinman is here from Congressman Van Hollen’s office. Nice to see you. And we have the Mayor of Kensington, Pete Fosselman, here as well. And there may be other elected officials, I’ll keep an eye out for them as I look around. But Council Member Knapp is next.
Mike Knapp
Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to Council Member Floreen to serve as the Council President. It has been my pleasure over the last seven years to have served with Nancy in a variety of roles. Nancy has served this county for the better part of the last thirty years, serving as Mayor of Garrett Park, serving two terms on the Planning Board, serving seven years on the County Council and being just an all-around civic activist when she wasn’t actually elected to something. I have always been impressed with Nancy’s focus in that when you get to this side of the dais, there are lots and lots of issues. There are lots of things that can distract, lots of things that can deter.
And Nancy was elected, her interests were in transportation, her interests were in planning, her interests were in economic development. She became the Chair of the Transportation and Environment, Infrastructure, Energy… there we go, that one… because she knew that was the place where she could make the most difference as it related to transportation. She’s been dogged in her pursuits of that as a goal. She is current serving as the Vice-Chair for Transit for the National Association of Counties for Transportation Steering Committee. She has served on COG in various transportation capacities. She has served in our state to advocate at the state legislature. She has served to advocate at the federal government to make sure that people understand the needs of transportation in Montgomery County and the needs of transportation more broadly. Nancy also recognized the importance of making sure that what we’re doing is sustainable and focusing on the environment and she has, as I was Chair of the Council of Governments, she served as the Chair of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Climate Change Steering Committee, which tried to make sure that we as a region have a set of priorities and principles that will guide us moving into the future. She has focused very broadly on these issues that she knows are important and these issues that she knows are critical to our county.
But she also takes time to look at those other things. A woman who has raised her family, has held a career, she also understood the importance of making sure that… how do we make sure that we set the path for those who are coming behind us? And so she chaired the Girls and Technology Task Force a few years ago to make sure that girls who were growing up in this environment are prepared to be leaders going into the future. In addition to that, she focuses on her efforts on the Jewish Council on Aging, Habitat for Humanity and Strathmore Hall Foundation to make sure that we’re looking at not just transportation and planning but we’re also looking at the quality of life for our residents. Nancy has been committed to this community for a long time and the leadership that she brings and the focus that she has I think will serve us very, very well in the year to come given the challenges that we will face. And so with that, it is my pleasure to nominate Nancy Floreen for Council President.
Phil Andrews
Thank you very much, Council Member Knapp. Are there any other nominations for Council President? Seeing none, the nominations are closed and I’ll call on Council Members who would like to make any comments. Council Member Trachtenberg.
Duchy Trachtenberg
Thank you, President Andrews. I’m offering this morning public support for my friend and colleague, Vice-President Berliner for the Presidency of the Montgomery County Council. Council Member Berliner has represented District 1, my home town, with distinction and character. He has been gracious, collegial and productive in all his endeavors here at the council. Council Vice-President Berliner has earned his place as an officer on this dais and he should be afforded the opportunity to serve as our Council President. Several weeks back, when interviewed by the media, I stated that it was my belief that the council would come together during this election process. I had truly hoped that we would, embracing the institution and respecting the urgency of the people’s business.
Sadly, I was mistaken, because I believe that political ambition apparently has replaced the fundamental civility and congenial dialogue that were always hallmarks of this County Council for forty years. Instead, some decisions apparently today that will be made will forever change the manner in which the people’s business is addressed. At a time when the public has a right to expect responsible and responsive leadership, in an unprecedented time of fiscal peril, apparently, there are some that are more concerned at unelecting certain other colleagues.
I am so, so disappointed with those who think that a council seat or a leadership slot is designed for political punishment of political opponents rather than constructive and effective representation of the public at large. There are very important implications of today’s potential rejection of a forty year tradition of electing a sitting Vice-President as the new Council President the first Tuesday in December.
First off, the abuse of this process will undoubtedly convince the voters in this county to start electing the Council President every four years in a general election. Why leave it in the hands of squabbling Council Members who will flap in the winds of political expediency? Secondly, having access to raw political power is not equal to exercising real leadership. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.
We are at a serious moment in the history of this council that has been served by many giants, Norman Christeller, Idamae Garrott, Sid Kramer, Neal Potter, Esther Gelman, Ike Leggett and Marilyn Praisner among them. I recall quite vividly the care and thoughtfulness that went into Council President Praisner’s decisions about the committees here at the council on key leadership roles right at the beginning of this present term. Marilyn, in a five to four council configuration, after an electoral battle centered on growth and development, could have easily played the power cards handed her with the new majority. Instead, she exercised leadership with a firm but fair hand. She chose to unify this council by making sure that each Council Member had opportunities to shine no matter their political or policy stripes. In fact, I recall the effort that she put into the selection of the Vice-President, offering the opportunity not to a political ally, but rather to a colleague with very divergent views from her own.
I often refer to the large stack of papers, articles and hand-written notes that Marilyn left to me the night before her surgery. I rarely share these treasures as I’ve saved them for special times. They are used sparingly and in moments of crisis. Over the weekend, I read one more time the following words inscribed on page eleven of Marilyn’s testament. “Don’t give in to petty and cruel politics. Keep smiling and don’t forget why you came to the council office building.” That’s kept me going through today and will keep me going tomorrow as well. I will reach deep into my soul to continue my work on behalf of the people of Montgomery County. And Mr. Vice-President, Roger, I know you will too. I am pleased and proud to support your nomination this morning.
Phil Andrews
Thank you, Council Member Trachtenberg, and I’ll make a brief comment and then we’ll vote on the nominations. I believe that every member of this body has the potential and could serve well as Council President. I’m going to vote for my colleague, Council Vice-President Berliner. He has served very ably as Council Vice-President. As I described a little earlier, he is very well positioned to take the council through a very difficult year and I believe that it would be better for the council to follow the precedent that it has followed over the years, barring an extraordinary reason not to, which I do not see present at all in this case. So my vote is a vote for, not a vote against, and I would just say that.
With that, we are ready to vote on the nominations. All those… we’ll take them in the order they were nominated. All those in favor of Council Vice-President Roger Berliner to serve as Council President, please raise your hand. And that is Council Member Elrich, Council Member Trachtenberg, myself as Council Vice-President Berliner. All those in favor of Council Member Floreen to serve as President, please raise your hands. That is Council Member Navarro, Council Member Floreen, Council Member Knapp, Council Member Ervin and Council Member Leventhal. Council Member Floreen is elected Council President. Congratulations. And now Council Member Floreen will Chair…
Nancy Floreen
According to the script…
Phil Andrews
Yes, you’re now the Chair. I don’t think we have to change seats yet, you conduct the next nomination…
Nancy Floreen
The next item on the agenda is the…
Roger Berliner
Madam Chair, if I could, before we get to the nominations for Vice-President?
Nancy Floreen
Of course.
Roger Berliner
Thanks. Thank you, Madam Chair. President. My colleagues, the majority has spoken. The majority rules, but regrettably, not always wisely. And I do believe abandoning a fifty year tradition that has served us well is most unwise. I am not alone in thinking this way. Our council has received strong protests from homeowner associations, Democratic precinct chairs, and scores of individuals from throughout the county urging my colleagues to set aside their individual grievances to the larger, common good. And the Washington Post and the Gazette have both expressed their strong views that the majority has taken us into dangerous waters where might is right.
That has not been Montgomery County’s way. We take understandable pride in a different kind of politics here. Not this kind. This is bad politics and even worse governance. I certainly appreciate that our first three years have been marked by unprecedented tragedies. First, Marilyn’s death, from which we never recovered. Then her husband’s. And with Council Member Navarro’s election, it is said, and this vote appears to confirm, that there is a new majority. Elections matter, I am told. And I agree.
But the election that matters in this context is not the special election of my colleague but rather the earlier election when we elected a Vice-President. It is that election that had always determined our Council Presidency. Today’s vote was always a formality. Abandoning that tradition and effectively overturning that unanimous decision destabilizes and further politicizes this institution we serve and does a disservice to our county.
Moreover, it is not as though the new majority is without ample means to demonstrate that elections matter, whether on how or where we grow, or other issues. Legislation requires five votes. They have five votes. They have the power. Already, four of the five members hold powerful committee chairmanships. That’s power. And today, they could have used their power to elect a Vice-President that more closely reflects their point of view, someone who would become Council President in the first year of a new term. That’s power. But apparently, that is not enough power. And that’s where I believe the majority errs. It should have been enough.
A number of my colleagues have expressed their unhappiness with me before standing up in defense of the tradition that has served us so well. I do not apologize for it. I did not seek this debate, I did not want this division, I have a deep and abiding commitment to finding common ground, which my record on this council reflects. But this is wrong. And I have a fundamentally different view from those of my colleagues who have suggested abandoning a fifty year practice that determines the leadership of our council as a private matter. It is most assuredly not a private matter. It is by definition a very public issue. And if the light cast by the public nature of this debate has not been flattering, please do not blame the messengers.
And one message that has come through loud and clear is that this is an issue that many of my constituents in District 1 feel strongly about. They have never had a Council President since districts were first created more than twenty years ago. This was their turn too. So I am not sorry, I am not sorry for standing my ground and fighting for what so many perceive to be the long-term welfare of our institution or simple fairness for my constituents. This clearly is not an auspicious beginning for what is going to be a very difficult year. Going forward, my commitment is the same as it has always been: to represent the good people of District 1 and all of our county to the best of my ability, to fight hard for a sustainable future for all of us, and to work in good spirit, to find common ground. I thank my colleagues and the many residents of our county who hoped for a different outcome. Thank you.
Editor’s Note: The reason why no District 1 (Bethesda-Potomac-Chevy Chase) Council Member has been Council President since districts were created in 1990 is that it was served by two Republicans - Betty Ann Krahnke (1990-2000) and Howard Denis (2000-2006) - prior to Roger Berliner’s election. District 1 residents knew neither Republican would be President and voted for them anyway. Numerous at-large Council Members who have lived in District 1 have served as Council President, including Chevy Chase resident Neal Potter (1974, 1979, 1982), Bethesda resident Norman Christeller (1976), Chevy Chase resident Scott Fosler (1980), Potomac resident Esther Gelman (1984), Bethesda resident Bruce Adams (1992) and Potomac resident Gail Ewing (1996). Nancy Floreen, who lives in Garrett Park, is a District 1 resident.
In any event, the argument that a district must claim the Presidency for its parochial interest is an unusual one for a Council Member to make. The job of Council President is to represent the entire county. None of the recent District Council Members who became President - including Tom Perez, Marilyn Praisner, Mike Knapp and Phil Andrews - made a case for their assuming the office based on where they lived, and none tried to use the office to bring special benefits to their districts.
Also, we find Berliner’s invocation of "bad politics" ironic considering what has gone on in the past. In 2000, Berliner ran against former Planning Board Member Pat Baptiste in a District 1 Democratic special election primary. Baptiste defeated Berliner, but was in turn defeated by Denis for the council seat. Berliner’s allies ran a tough campaign against Baptiste that was lambasted by none other than Neal Potter, a six-term County Council Member and former County Executive with an unimpeachable record of integrity. According to the Gazette:"I have never known a Democratic candidate to be so desperate as to wage a hatchet job against a fellow Democrat," Potter wrote, referring to Berliner. "And after 38 years of public service, I hope that this is not the future of politics in Montgomery County."
Friday, October 16, 2009
MoCo Most Influential: 2008 vs. 2009
Here’s a question: who has gained or lost influence in MoCo over the last year? Maybe the only way to answer that is to see what our informants think. Most of the results from our 2008 and 2009 MoCo Most Influential surveys are the same but a few people moved their position dramatically. Let’s find out who they were.
First, let’s remember that the voting populations were different. Fifty-five informants voted in 2008, including just 16 women. Seventy-one informants voted in 2009, including 29 women. The voters also became more geographically diverse in 2009. For example, in 2008, 20 of the 55 came from Silver Spring or Takoma Park. In 2009, 22 of the 71 came from those areas.
This means that small shifts in position are meaningless and are probably due to changes in voter composition or statistical noise. Further, comparative vote totals don’t mean much because the voting population increased from 55 to 71. Big changes in rank and also in the percentage of voters who voted for an individual are the only changes that may mean something.
Here is a comparison of the elected officials in 2008 and 2009. Note the percentage of the vote each received.
There are only three electeds who achieved any real gains. They are:
Council President Phil Andrews
2008: 6 votes, 11% of the vote, unranked
2009: 24 votes, 34% of the vote, ranked 8th
+25 points
Delegate Brian Feldman (D-15)
2008: 11 votes, 20% of the vote, ranked 15th
2009: 29 votes, 41% of the vote, ranked 7th
+21 points
Council Member Valerie Ervin
2008: 18 votes, 33% of the vote, ranked 10th (tie)
2009: 33 votes, 46% of the vote, ranked 4th (tie)
+14 points (rounded)
At least part of Andrews’ rise is that he became Council President in December 2008, a one-year post that he will soon be giving up. Donna Edwards was ineligible in 2008 because at that time, we restricted eligibility to MoCo residents. We relaxed that rule this year to include people who worked here. Since Edwards’ district includes about a third of the county, she now qualifies.
Four electeds suffered significant drops. They are:
Council Member Marc Elrich
2008: 22 votes, 40% of the vote, ranked 6th (tie)
2009: 13 votes, 18% of the vote, ranked 15th (tie)
-22 points
Council Member Mike Knapp
2008: 21 votes, 38% of the vote, ranked 8th (tie)
2009: 14 votes, 20% of the vote, ranked 13th (tie)
-18 points
Comptroller Peter Franchot
2008: 22 votes, 40% of the vote, ranked 6th (tie)
2009: 16 votes, 23% of the vote, ranked 11th
-17 points
County Executive Ike Leggett
2008: 48 votes, 87% of the vote, ranked 1st
2009: 50 votes, 70% of the vote, ranked 2nd
-17 points
Knapp was the 2008 Council President. Elrich was seen by many as the intellectual leader of the former Council majority that was ended by the 2009 special election. Franchot has had a lower profile since his slots-fueled war with the Lords of Annapolis ended. And the spies’ comments about Leggett have been the talk of Rockville.
Here is a comparison of the non-electeds.
The only big changes here are the entries of Steve Silverman and David Moon, the decline of Tim Firestine by 21 points (which is probably more a reflection on his boss than on him) and the replacement of former MCEA President Bonnie Cullison with current President Doug Prouty.
We are not going to perform this exercise again until after the 2010 primary election. It will be interesting to see who benefits and loses then!
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Silverman Comments on Leggett, Knapp Biotech Editorials
Steve Silverman, the County's recently hired Director of Economic Development, submitted a comment on our post "Leggett, Knapp Issue Dueling Plans for Biotech." We reprint the comment below for the benefit of our readers.
Adam,
I saw your blog entry regarding the “Dueling Plans for Biotech”. You stated that County Executive Leggett’s October 9th guest editorial for the Washington Business Journal was a “tit-for-tat” to Mr. Knapp’s 10-point Life Sciences Strategy proposal. That assumption is not reality.
First of all, County Executive Leggett welcomes and encourages Mr. Knapp’s contributions to our efforts and views Mr. Knapp’s proposal as complementary to the ongoing efforts we are making in this area. Secondly, County Executive Leggett recognized the importance of the biotech industry in Montgomery County early on in his long career on the County Council, helping to grow and nurture this industry during its early development in the County. He has continued that commitment to this vital industry as County Executive.
Since assuming office, County Executive Leggett has initiated three distinct efforts to strategically plan for our community’s economic future: 1) the development of the County’s Strategic Plan for Economic Development; 2) the establishment of a Biosciences Task Force, a group chaired by David Mott (former CEO of our own home grown MedImmune), which is developing a vision and roadmap to a successful life sciences industry; and 3) a Green Economy Task Force, whose end product will be a plan to develop the green industry, and jobs, in our community. Mr. Knapp’s proposals dovetail with these ongoing efforts.
The County Executive has been successful in leading the charge to have both the Maryland BioScience Center and the Maryland Clean Energy Center establish their operations in the County. He has funded and opened the fifth business incubator in the County’s Business Innovation Center on the Germantown campus of Montgomery College, a facility which builds on the College’s biotechnology and science programs.
And under his leadership, the County has successfully advocated for an expansion of the State’s much-in-demand biotechnology tax credit program.
Just to clarify, the guest editorial to the WBJ was drafted and sent to the WBJ on September 25 – more than least two weeks before it was published and five days before Mr. Knapp’s press release. (The “mainstream media” is not as nimble as you bloggers in printing posts). So, it should not be viewed as a “tit-for-tat”. For our efforts in growing and nurturing Montgomery County’s bioscience industry to succeed we must all work together. The County Executive knows this and I’m sure Mr. Knapp does as well.
Given your interest in this, I’ve attached the County Executive’s editorial on this issue.
Steve Silverman
Director
Montgomery County Office of Economic Development
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Leggett, Knapp Issue Dueling Plans for Biotech (Updated)
Something is in the air, folks. If you pause for a moment and listen, you might hear it – a little voice that whispers, “Jobs, jobs, jobs.” Council Member Mike Knapp heard it and now the County Executive does too. And that voice is getting louder, ever louder as the elections approach.
On September 30, Knapp released a ten-point “Life Sciences and Technology Economic Development Strategy” that he said was “necessary if the County is to remain at the national forefront of biotech and high-tech research and development.” Leggett followed with an October 9 guest editorial in the Washington Business Journal entitled, “A Master Plan to Boost Bioscience in Montgomery County.” Since the editorial is only available via subscription – a fact that the County Executive’s press staff should have known would limit its readership – we reproduce it below.
Knapp’s plan is holistic and countywide while Leggett’s plan focuses on Gaithersburg West, but that is beside the point. The real story here is two-fold. First, the County Executive and a potential rival are both talking about job creation, suggesting that 2010 will have a different issue mix than 2006. And second, the County Executive is determined to not allow his critics to pre-empt him on an important issue, even if that means tit-for-tat press statements.
Following is Leggett’s guest editorial on bioscience.
Update: The Washington Business Journal asked us to delete Leggett’s essay from this blog entry and we complied. We asked them to make the link above active to non-subscribers. In the future, perhaps the County Executive’s staff will consider making his opinion pieces available on free sites.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Snippety-Snip!
Here’s the latest round-up of snippety-snips from Rockville!
Snippety...
Council Member Valerie Ervin on County Executive Ike Leggett’s pending proposal for $30 million in cuts:Councilwoman Valerie Ervin, D-Silver Spring, criticized Leggett’s proposal as “skimming off the top” and said the county executive needed to show more leadership and present a long-term solution for how the county was going to cope with a grim financial forecast…
Snippety...
Ervin said unpaid furloughs for county employees were inevitable, and Leggett should announce them soon so employees could plan for the pay cut.
“The hammer is still out there waiting to hit us on the head,” she said.
Council Member Mike Knapp on Leggett’s plan to hire a consultant to make growth policy recommendations, but only after the issue is decided by the council:“For (Leggett) to send over proposals after the council has acted is a waste of the county’s money, and it clearly reflects that he didn’t really want to engage in the process,” said Councilman Michael J. Knapp (D-Dist. 2) of Germantown.
Snip!
County Executive spokesman Patrick Lacefield on a newly-passed bill sponsored by Council President Phil Andrews that would limit future bills to one subject. Andrews wrote his bill in response to a three-subject bill sent over by the Executive that included the ambulance fee, which he opposes.“We’re a little more focused on the substance of (the bill) than the process, and perhaps Mr. Andrews should be, too,” Lacefield said.
And the Zippiest Snip Award goes to...
Patrick Lacefield. There’s nothing quite like the County Executive’s spokesman skewering his boss’s erstwhile political ally, Council President Andrews, in the press.
With the elections coming, we may have to make this a regular feature!
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Montgomery County’s Most Influential People, Part Two
Our respondents collectively nominated 53 elected officials as the most influential leaders in Montgomery County. We present the leaders starting today, along with some commentary from myself and our spies, in reverse order of their number of votes.
15 (tie). Kumar Barve, House Majority Leader (D-17)
13 Votes
Reader: The Speaker’s point person on any number of issues, he is well liked in Annapolis and knows how to use the weight of the powerful Majority Leader position.
Reader: Universally liked, and that means something. I would bet there’s not an influential person on your list that hits ignore when he calls their cell phone.
Adam: Funny, charming, smart Bad Boy. Earns extra points for marrying way out of his league. Would be a wildly entertaining Speaker of the House if he could get there.
15 (tie). Karen Britto, Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee Chairwoman
13 Votes
Reader: She runs the Democratic Party with a tight fist and is working hard to see that all of the now-incumbents she selected for the legislature are re-elected in 2010.
Reader: Runs a tight ship that has helped keep the County Dems so popular.
Reader: She knows everything about every district and every precinct, and works day and night for the party and its electeds.
Reader: Puppet master, and I mean that in a good way. She understands what this county will look like in a few years and is making sure that the Democratic Party reflects that.
Reader: Our MCDCC head should be nicknamed the “hidden hand.” While your average voter likely knows little about her, Karen Britto works hard to try and keep the peace in the Democratic Party and has also been known to tip the scale when legislative vacancies occur. More importantly, she works hard to advance a vision for the party and its interests in the region. Remember that there are zero Republicans representing Montgomery County at the County Council, State House or Congress.
Adam: A gracious, wise and exceedingly well-connected woman. Easy charm conceals tempered steel. Anyone who wants to run for office in this county must see her first.
15 (tie). Marc Elrich, Montgomery County Council Member
13 Votes
Reader: I’ve been impressed with his pragmatism, and yet I believe he doesn’t stray from his core beliefs (which I don’t always agree with but I respect his commitment to them.) I don’t think any other Council Member enjoys the office more than Marc, or who puts the time into the job as he does.
Reader: Dogmatic and rigid, yet has managed to touch a chord with those that wish for a County of yesterday – rolling hills, cul-de-sacs, and a sprinkle of people of color so we can feel good about calling ourselves “liberals.”
Reader: Drops in influence now that he lacks a majority on the council and has to hustle for re-election. He should be fine, but doesn’t have a lot of money or bills to point to after four years.
Reader: A real opinion leader. First, you think he’s crazy. Next, you turn around and tell everyone about his ideas. Finally, you begin thinking they’re yours.
Adam: Show me a local politician with a more visionary idea than Elrich’s county-wide BRT system. No, I didn’t think you could.
13 (tie). Donna Edwards, U.S. House of Representatives
14 Votes
Reader: Now an icon of the netroots and the national progressive movement, Edwards has a lot of influence to wield. Some are disappointed in her performance so far, but the fact remains that for candidates for office in CD4, her endorsement will mean a hell of a lot.
Reader: Politico ranked her as one of the top incoming Congresswomen, and her super-liberal stances on every issue both reflect the liberal stances of CD-4 and her national donor network, but she has a lousy, unresponsive staff and her best skill seems to be burning bridges. She’s trying to play locally in Prince George’s to build a local base, but not in Montgomery. Most of the elected officials and activists who supported her in 2008 are dissatisfied, and she has a big problem with the local and national Jewish community. Apparently Van Hollen and Sheila Hixson got angry because they started receiving constituent calls because Donna’s office wouldn’t return them. Her poll numbers among black men are abysmal, and if Glenn Ivey runs and AIPAC raises money for him, along with a Herman Taylor challenge picking off a few votes in MoCo, she might not lose, but she’ll certainly have a fight.
Reader: At the Obama event at the University of Maryland campus when Obama introduced the top elected leaders from Maryland present at the rally, Donna Edwards was received like a rock star among the students. It was really remarkable considering she has only been in office for a year and a half. She appeals to young voters and is obviously really popular among young people. She is a relentless fighter on all the issues that matter to progressive democrats. She works hard, does her homework and is a relentless campaigner. I think that she has a brilliant future in Congress or whatever she chooses to do in the future. It is interesting to note that she is the first African American woman ever elected to congress from the state of Maryland. African American women vote in huge numbers in Democratic primaries in Maryland and in many other states. This fact alone could make her a contender in a statewide run for governor or the US Senate. There is nobody out there that can beat her in a debate. She has to make sure to listen to people who are telling her to beef up her staff which many perceive as weak.
Reader: Everyone knows her staff is her biggest problem, and her constituent services aren’t winning her any points, and she needs to be more thoughtful in how she speaks on Israel-Palestine issues, but overall Donna Edwards has shown herself to be a true progressive, bold, and highly intelligent in her approach to her job. Progressives in Montgomery County will stick with her, especially labor and the LGBT community, because despite her flaws, she’s everything we never got from Al Wynn.
Reader: Giant killer. If she can turn back prospective challengers from MoCo and PG next year, she has a bright future statewide.
Adam: Still a progressive hero despite the faults of her staff and her occasionally testy nature. Chews up opponents and spits out the broken bones.
13 (tie). Mike Knapp, Montgomery County Council Member
14 Votes
Reader: Being chair of the Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee, he controls land use issues in MoCo.
Reader: Has respect of labor and business. Solid. Leader. Doesn’t knee-jerk like most politicians.
Adam: A decent, genial Upstate New Yorker who has never let his political success go to his head.
12. Rob Garagiola, Senator (D-15)
15 Votes
Reader: He has the ear of the Senate President, which can have a huge impact.
Reader: A rising star in the State Senate, he is Montgomery’s representative on the powerful Senate Finance Committee and has the ear of the current Senate President, Mike Miller, and the possible future President, Mac Middleton.
Reader: Politically, I think he’s way too conservative, but is a solid State Senator and is the county’s counterpoint to Jamie Raskin. In looking at people to fill Van Hollen’s seat, Garagiola is among the top contenders, especially for moderate Democratic voters.
Reader: Bright and decent man with a conservative bent – thinks it serves his district well – some wonder – in comparison to Raskin – very different agendas.
Reader: Paying his dues with Mike Miller while earning creds with workforce legislation.
Reader: Tough, courageous and smart. Willing to take risks and violate liberal orthodoxy. Another possible Senate President.
Adam: I know all you spies like to gossip about Garagiola’s relationship with Big Daddy. But it’s time that we respect him for his intelligence, his ability to work the levers of Annapolis and his aptitude for learning policy and politics quickly. He is a legitimate contender to be Senate President someday.
11. Peter Franchot, Maryland Comptroller
16 Votes
Reader: Doesn’t get much respect, doesn’t give much respect. But don’t underestimate the guy. No one out-hustles Franchot.
Reader: It is remarkable how someone holding statewide elected office could have so few friends and so many detractors. The ultimate self promoter in Maryland politics. He is on this list solely by virtue of the vast authority conferred upon his office.
Reader: The State Comptroller may rub some people the wrong way, but he knows how to garner ink and is one of three votes on the Board of Public Works. His position is powerful in the State as compared to Comptroller jobs in other States.
Reader: Outspoken. Love him or hate him – he’s still underrated. He was right on slots and has an agenda. Two terms as Comptroller a guarantee and will be a challenge for Gansler to hold MoCo votes in the Governor primary in 2014.
Reader: Now that he’s cooled his jets he can refashion himself. But for a Comptroller he casts a big shadow, he knows how to use media and isn’t averse to switching gears.
Reader: In contrast to some of our more conciliatory County politicians, Comptroller Peter Franchot has been willing to ruffle feathers. Where others see challenging Governor O'Malley and Mike Miller as heresy, Franchot has stepped into the ring and usually on the progressive side of the equation. Unfortunately, though many of our politicians act like lemmings, Franchot almost always finds himself alone in his crusades. One would think this would be a sign of his lack of influence, but in fact, somehow it has all worked out and Franchot looks headed for safe reelection.
Adam: Here’s Franchot’s dilemma. When he’s noisy, he gains visibility but infuriates other politicians with whom he needs to have relationships to get anything done (assuming he’s interested). But when he quiets down, he loses influence. Franchot can still make a splash in the media but because he is not at all a team player – and never will be – his ability to move any policy issues is limited.
10. Jamie Raskin, Senator (D-20)
22 Votes
Reader: Jamie Raskin has proven that outspoken liberal does not have to mean ineffective. He’s peripatetic but still gets a lot done.
Reader: Our legislatures are filled with lawyers, too many of whom give that noble profession a bad name. Jamie Raskin, on the other hand, is exactly the kind of lawyer I want in my legislature: smart, principled, liberal, and academic. Officials and activists in Annapolis turn to him because of the knowledge and skills he brings to the table as a constitutional lawyer, qualities that make him unique in the Montgomery County state legislative delegation.
Reader: From freshman Senator to instant leader! It is as if Jamie has been in Annapolis for ever! Or he is just one smart politician. Either case, none of the other freshman from 2006 have had the impact he’s had. People from other counties who could care less for Montgomery County know his name. That’s got to be influence baby!
Reader: Since he beat Ida in 2006, his base has only kept growing. He’s a progressive star in the state, and will move up to higher office soon – he’s a favorite for Maryland AG once Gansler vacates for governor in 2014 or Van Hollen’s seat, whichever he chooses or comes first. In a county represented by Donna Edwards and Chris Van Hollen, Jamie could not be better positioned to run for higher office. He’s particularly influential now, as many potential and declared 2010 challengers look to him for advice.
Reader: Has emerged as a leader of the Progressives – some say he is too brash and will not be content to grow and become part of leadership in the traditional seniority and favor driven Senate of Mike Miller. He does have good, sometimes quirky ideas, but he is shaking up the formerly sleepy District 20.
Reader: Well loved by progressives, managed to be effective in Annapolis without being marginalized which is no small feat given how outspoken he is. But he has humor and great integrity.
Reader: No other Montgomery County politician can claim the legions of diehard groundtroops that Jamie Raskin has mobilized since first taking office in 2006. He is a true movement progressive, as evidenced by his inspiring speeches, involvement at the national level, and the true grassroots organizing he engages in with his supporters. The rumors are persistent that Raskin is planning a 2014 run for Attorney General, a position he should be a natural for, given his background as a Constitutional law professor, but he is also often mentioned as a successor to Rep. Chris Van Hollen.
Adam: Raskin is becoming an icon who is embraced by all the feuding camps of people who call themselves progressives.
8 (tie). Phil Andrews, Montgomery County Council President
24 Votes
Reader: Continues to set the standard for graciousness and how elected officials should conduct themselves.
Reader: You always know where he is on issues. He will not play games, even when one does not agree with his positions. He is to be respected for standing his ground.
Reader: He was at least a year ahead of his colleagues in understanding what was coming with the county budget, and he got a bunch of crap for it.
Reader: As his year as Council President comes to an end, Andrews made sure that issues affecting his district - the controversial I-270 widening and even more controversial Gaithersburg West Master Plan - are in the spotlight, framing the conversation of how Montgomery County will grow in the future. Like Adam wrote before, he is the person to watch in the I-270 debate.
Reader: Any higher aspirations that Andrews has will be stymied by his having pissed off so many core democratic constituencies during his time on the council.
Reader: For all of my disagreements with Phil Andrews, it is hard to say that he is not providing a steady and measured hand as Council President. It just proves that you can take strong positions on issues, tangle with those who disagree with you, and still get along with others at the end of the day. Andrews’ colleagues and especially those that wish to succeed him as Council President would be wise to take notes.
Adam: A budget-cutting President in a budget-cutting year. Andrews was a lone ranger on fiscal issues three years ago but now many of his views are dominant. He is also a decent, competent and civil public servant in a county that could use more of them.
8 (tie). Doug Gansler, Maryland Attorney General
24 Votes
Reader: By his own standards, he has been low key. But the Office of Attorney General in Maryland routinely makes legal decisions that impact the lives of every Marylander.
Reader: The antics of Peter Franchot aside, if he wants it, I think Gansler's the next Governor. Both reasonable and effective.
Reader: Doug Gansler has positioned himself well to be Maryland’s first governor from Montgomery in awhile. Accomplished good things and gained a reputation as a workhorse, not a show horse, especially in comparison with Peter Franchot but also in comparison to his rep as State’s Attorney.
Reader: His race for governor begins in November of 2010. He manages to show up to everything in the county while still being an active presence everywhere else in the state.
Reader: Not mixing it up in local or state circles right now, but almost certain to be the next Governor.
Reader: I suspect that Doug Gansler has been preparing a run for governor since at least 1987. Since becoming Attorney General, Doug Gansler has set himself up nicely for when he decides to run for the Democratic Party nomination. For instance, his vocal support for marriage equality legislation in early 2008 provided a strong contrast to Governor O'Malley’s deeply offensive reaction to the state high court's anti-equality decision a few months earlier. I suspect there are a lot of Montgomery County Democrats who are looking forward to volunteering for a Gansler For Governor campain in 2014 - and wish he were running instead of O'Malley in 2010.
Reader: Montgomery County’s strongest statewide office holder. Unlike Franchot, he understands how to accomplish things in Annapolis. He also hasn’t made any enemies, but he isn’t actually too influential on the lives of Montgomery County residents. He’s a strong candidate for Governor in 2014, but he’s not too progressive, and while he has an early money lead, who knows what will happen in 2014.
Reader: Mr. Gansler is a fundraising machine and has name recognition throughout the state. Let's hope he doesn't disappoint progressives, who are waiting with baited breath to see if he will do the right thing and issue the opinion that, according to longstanding legal precedent, Maryland must honor marriages between same-sex couples legalized in other states.
Reader: Doug Gansler has taken a strong stand in the past on marriage equality, and is about to issue a ruling on marriage equality that will have a direct effect upon my life. While that might not make everyone’s list of “Most Influential,” to me, few things matter more than an official who takes seriously the concept of equal protection under the law.
Reader: Not much impact directly on Montgomery County, but clearly a force to reckoned with at the State. He’s avoided letting his ambition push him into attention getting behavior. I think he’s better behaved than he was as the County Attorney.
Reader: Our Attorney General seems to have many enemies and haters but somehow continues steamrolling up the political ladder. The “silent majority” would be a term best used to describe Gansler voters, because I can’t seem to locate anyone who is willing to admit they actually voted for him. To his credit, he has raised ungodly amounts of money and at this point in time is entering the 2014 gubernatorial contest from a much stronger position than any of his potential rivals. Unless something changes, I predict we will be bowing down to Governor Gansler in a few short years.
Adam: Goes everywhere and raises money for everybody. Clearly running for Governor once O’Malley leaves and is, right now, the heavy favorite to win.
7. Brian Feldman, Delegate (D-15)
29 Votes
Reader: House Chair of Montgomery County Delegation. Going places.
Reader: House Delegation Chair, finishing his second term in the House. Helps give the whole delegation credibility with his demeanor and talent.
Reader: Strong job as Chair with no competitors.
Reader: As head of the Delegation, he can help unite the state delegation to pass (or stop) priority legislation for the state. Smart and respected as well.
Reader: Cool, calm and collected. A measured and serious legislator.
Reader: Does a good job as Montgomery County Delegation House Chair. Is seen by others in Annapolis as a calm, reasonable representative for Montgomery County issues.
Reader: As head of the County Delegation – holds a lot of power in setting the Legislative Agenda – since he is among the more cautious members of the Delegation – wonder when he is going to step up with a more progressive agenda.
Reader: He is Chair of the Delegation for a reason. He is confident and smart and understands the politics of everything very well. He plays the game well in MoCo and in Annapolis where he is well respected.
Reader: Mover and shaker in Annapolis who knows how to get things done.
Reader: I’ve gotten to like him a lot better. He’s quietly effective and has a lot going on in his head that you don’t see. He’s good with his colleagues, he’s respected and thoughtful.
Adam: Grows in stature every year.
Come back tomorrow for the Super Six!
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Mike Knapp Takes on Baltimore Guy
Montgomery County Council Member Mike Knapp has commented on the long-running debate between your author and Baltimore Sun reporter Michael Dresser, aka "Baltimore Guy." Following is the letter to the Sun written by the Gentle Giant of Germantown.
August 3, 2009
"Baltimore Guy" Off Base
I applaud Michael Dresser's "Baltimore Guy" for taking the interests of his home town to heart ("Getting There -- $4.6 billion to keep Montgomery 'vibrant' seems a bit much," July 27) -- but I'm afraid that after a closer look at reality, he will see that with his handwringing over the proposal to widen the I-270 corridor in Montgomery County rather than spending that money in Baltimore ... well, he really does protest too much.
Dresser bases much of his argument on an extremely short-sighted and rather spurious premise: Why should the state spend money "on a project few Baltimoreans are likely to use?" With that logic, Baltimore Guy might well ask why the state of Maryland would want to spend tax dollars maintaining parks in Cumberland, funding schools in Waldorf or repairing roads in St. Mary's County. Frankly, the idea of setting up a Montgomery County versus Baltimore dichotomy -- or, worse yet, Montgomery County versus The Rest of Maryland -- reeks of the playground. We can do better.
In fact, I absolutely agree that Montgomery County -- indeed, all of Maryland -- would benefit by having a vibrant Baltimore. Mr. Dresser suggests investing more funds in Baltimore -- and I'm pleased to announce that we in Montgomery County have done our part. Indeed, Montgomery County taxpayers not only send more funding to Annapolis each year than any other jurisdiction in Maryland -- about $2.1 billion comes from Montgomery County, as opposed to $629 million from Baltimore City -- but most of that money actually stays outside the borders of our county.
Under next year's budget, for instance, Baltimore City residents would receive $1,879 per capita in state aid, while Montgomery County residents would receive $768. If Baltimore Guy wants to pit one county against another, he better be darn sure he knows which way the money in Maryland is actually flowing -- because Montgomery County and others are definitely investing in Baltimore. But using Mr. Dresser's logic, our residents should be asking if it is really worth investing in Baltimore's schools, since none of our students in Montgomery County are attending them.
Further, I-270 serves as the western gateway to the nation's capital -- and every year, it is driven on not only by the Montgomery County residents Mr. Dresser finds so unworthy, but by hundreds of thousands of tourists who make their way to this region, bringing millions of dollars to the greater Washington, D.C./Baltimore region. If widening I-270 reduces congestion and makes it easier and less time-consuming to make it into D.C., well, I hope Dresser won't begrudge Ohioians, West Virginians and Kansans from using it.
Finally, I would point out to Baltimore Guy that a major expansion of I-95, reconstructing the highway from Interstate-895 to White Marsh Boulevard by adding two express toll lanes and four general-purpose lanes in each direction, is currently underway. Will Montgomery County residents use this road? Maybe. Does the fact that our residents may not use this improved road mean that it is not good for Montgomery County? Absolutely not. Such improvements are good not only for Baltimore and Montgomery County but for all of Maryland, period.
Mike Knapp, Rockville
The writer is a Montgomery County councilman.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Preservation: Looking at Our Heritage and Our Future
By Sharon Dooley.
Growing up in New England, as I did, one becomes infused with history from an early age. In my community and others nearby there were constant reminders; as one drives from town to town, each town is announced with a sign noting when it was founded or incorporated. In my town just north of Boston the sign stated our founding in the 1630’s – that is right – close to 400 years ago. The stone Congregational Church (descendant of the Pilgrims) was built in the 1700’s; the oldest building in town dates back to the previous century. So when I see debates about Historic preservation – I understand the importance of retaining important memories from years and cultures long passed. Many who grew up in areas that had colonial settlements have had similar experiences.
The current debate in Montgomery County – so well described by Ann Marimow in the Post Metro section recently brings this conversation home to Montgomery County.
The question asked was: “ when is a building “just old” and when is it historic?” I might also ask is every old building salvageable? How many old barns do we need to preserve? Should we require a farmer to preserve a building that no longer has a use to him? All of these are important questions and need to be explored further when the council takes up Mike Knapp’s proposal to allow owners to walk away from historic preservation designation if they so wish. But as with many questions in Montgomery County – there are complexities that lie beneath the surface.
Over the years preservationists have saved many structures from destruction and have kept some unique buildings intact. Examples such as the Comsat Building in Clarksburg, the AFI Theatre in Silver Spring and Higgins Tavern in Olney are just a few of the prominent architectural types that dot our county and have had major campaigns to preserve and/or restore them. In Olney, an historic Spring House was discovered along Route 108; it was over grown with vines and weeds but was restored when a nearby building was constructed. (Here the owners revised their development plans in order to preserve the building.)
Some might say that the discussion should be ‘how many old barns should we save’ versus the ‘save every old thing’ crowd. Others might indicate the necessity to understand our heritage by showing where we have been is vital by using places to mark this history - the recent purchase by the Parks Department of Josiah Henson’s Cabin along Old Georgetown Road is an example. (Henson was notable as the slave on whom Uncle Tom’s Cabin was modeled and he and his family went on to prominence in later years.) Several of the most recent historic sites in the County are noted in this map that accompanied the article referenced above.
In my view – since once something is torn down, it cannot be restored, our community should always be cautious with irreplaceable architecture. We need to be able to have a heritage to leave to our following generations. In ancient Greece and Rome the crumbling public structures are maintained and honored by their communities; ours are not 2000 years old - does that mean we should do less? I think not. We need to be careful not to amend our heritage out of existence. We also must be careful not to harm property owners. When properties are designated historic, the owners receive advantages in their taxes since the property has an easement on it and that is considered to reduce its value. When properties are considered in a district other special considerations apply and restrict use and modifications to those in keeping with the area. Therefore some who have advantages in one manner should not be able to have subsequent owners say – “never mind- we are no longer historic.” What should happen if an historic tiny church wants to expand its footprint as the congregation has grown – how should this be accommodated? What should happen if someone wants to place a fast food enterprise in an historic zone – what should be the approved façade? These are all questions that require serious study and should be answered. I hope with the assistance of each of the County interests having a say; these matters can be adequately addressed in hearings.
The council, as Marimow described, is going to consider a bill on Monday that would weaken many current protections and might change historic designations significantly in the future. By requiring a super majority on the historic preservation commission to approve changes, two persons could stall future designations. It appears to me that we should look toward some compromises that might allow a bit of flexibility. If a people purchase property next to a current historic building, there should be some assurances that this is going to remain ‘undeveloped’, so to speak. If maintaining properties are financially difficult for some owners, then perhaps the county could provide some resources to reduce these hardships by means of training artisans who are skilled in the trades of the past. We could have a restoration job corps bank, or a collection of old boards and bricks to aid in maintenance. Owners could apply for grants to preserve upkeep. This, to me is better than the county producing what is in effect a license to tear down buildings that the owner no longer wants. By lowering the bar we reduce our ability to learn from the past; this is not in our collective interest as a community.
