Phil Andrews: Ambulance Fees Can Cost Lives

Council Member Phil Andrews sent out this mailer under his own authority line.

Read More...

Summary only...

District 19 Senator Idamae Garrott

Prior to Mike Lenett’s election, District 19 had only three Senators over 28 years: Sid Kramer (1979-1986), Idamae Garrott (1987-1994) and Len Teitelbaum (1995-2006). Kramer was the best known since he became County Executive and Teitelbaum served the longest with three terms, but Garrott achieved a stature that bordered on iconic. Gazette columnist Josh Kurtz wrote after her passing in 1999, “To many people, she was the essence of Montgomery County politics, for good or ill: dedicated to strict land-use policies, consumer rights, clean government and measured deliberation.” For some, she was more than that: the spiritual leader of the anti-ICC movement and a saint of the civic community.

Garrott was the kind of politician who was cited as a validator by other candidates. Here’s one example from 1994, when Phil Andrews asked Garrott to chair his first campaign, an at-large council race, and stressed that fact in a mailer. Andrews finished sixth, but took up Garrott’s legacy four years later when he won the District 3 seat.

Read More...

Summary only...

Phil Andrews, Council At-Large, 1994

Phil Andrews is now known as the virtually invulnerable County Council Member from District 3 (Rockville/Gaithersburg), but he did not start out that way. Andrews first ran for a council at-large seat in 1994. Here is his kickoff letter to Democratic Party activists, citing his experience with Common Cause and his vow not to take PAC or developer money - a promise he has kept to this day. Andrews would not win this particular election, but it set him up nicely to win his district seat four years later.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Meanest MoCo Primary of All Time, Part One

Montgomery County’s political community is much more diverse than it appears to be from the outside. While nearly all political players here are Democrats, they often disagree on issues of development, budget, transportation and the appropriate pace of change. But one thing almost every one of them will say today is that this election has been the Meanest MoCo Primary of All Time.

We do not come to that conclusion lightly. MoCo has a long history of negative campaigning. The two traditional tools of political slime here have been the whisper campaign and, much less frequently, the mail.

MoCo is a large county but its local political community is relatively small – perhaps numbering only a few hundred people. That makes our jurisdiction ideally suited for whisper campaigns alleging all manner of sleaze and smut. If we believed every whisper we have heard, we would think that the state and county governments are populated exclusively by perverts, drunks, crooks, racists, floozies and (gasp!) closet Republicans. OK, maybe there is a small bit of truth in this, but we will not be naming names since some of these people are great anonymous sources. The virtue of whisper campaigns is that they do not need authority lines. But few of them break through to the mass media and most of them remain the Chardonnay gossip of insiders.

Candidates who have wanted to elevate their charges to the attention of the general public have occasionally gone into the mail. Most negative MoCo mailers are actually contrast pieces, which tout positive things about one candidate and bad things about that person’s rival. Here’s an example from 2002 in which Council Member Phil Andrews took on his challenger, Rockville City Council Member Bob Dorsey.





Most purely negative mailers in MoCo have been issue-based and not character-based. Here’s a 2002 mailer from the End Gridlock slate going after then-Council Member Blair Ewing for opposing the ICC.



The End Gridlock slate’s approach was logical. According to them, the ICC was necessary. Blair Ewing opposed it. So Ewing had to go. This says nothing about Ewing’s character, only that he was wrong on an issue.

Prior to this year, direct character attacks in MoCo campaigns have been uncommon. Two instances stand out.

1. Delegate Dana Dembrow (D-20)

Sharp-elbowed Delegate Dana Dembrow had been feuding bitterly with the rest of his delegation, Senator Ida Ruben and Delegates Sheila Hixson and Peter Franchot, for years. In 2002, Ruben and her allies tried to get him redistricted out, to no avail. But then Dembrow was charged with hitting his wife and all hell broke loose. The rest of his delegation endorsed Delegate challenger Gareth Murray and a wave of anti-Dembrow flyers discussing the domestic violence rushed through the district. Dembrow lost by 524 votes to Murray. After the election, the two PACs that funded the mailers were revealed to have received thousands of dollars from Ruben, Franchot, Hixson and Murray.

Dembrow was later hired by Governor Bob Ehrlich and fired a year later. In 2006, Ruben and Murray were defeated and Franchot was elected Comptroller, leaving Hixson as the sole survivor.

2. The County Council Can Can

In 2002, Neighbors for a Better Montgomery (Neighborspac) formed to oppose Doug Duncan’s End Gridlock County Council slate. End Gridlock swept the at-large election that year, but Neighborspac returned with guns blazing four years later. The group supplemented its traditional activity of tallying campaign finance data with this video of the End Gridlock Council Members, which it posted on its website.



Campaign contributions are always fair game for negative messaging. But this video went further with its depiction of five Council Members as marionettes dancing on a developer’s strings. (Its demented nature made it even more effective.) Two of the marionettes were defeated – one because he ran against Ike Leggett for Executive – and three survived. The video lives on in MoCo infamy.

The anti-Dembrow campaign and the Can Can stand out in county history because they were a bit unusual for their time. They would fit right in this year. 2010 has seen a large number of contested one-on-one primaries between candidates who do not like each other. It is also occurring in the context of a great number of technological platforms for delivering negative messages, like blogs, Facebook, email and attack sites, that did not exist or could not have been effective in the past. But what will truly be remembered about 2010 is the rip-roaring nastiness with which this year’s stinking mud has been sprayed. We’ll reminisce about the worst of the worst tomorrow.

Read More...

Summary only...

Why Incumbents Lose, Part Five

Most incumbents lose because of themselves, but a few have the bad luck to face great challengers. Let’s look at the upstarts more closely.

Every challenger thinks he or she is top-notch, but very few of them are. We define a great challenger as having the following four qualities.

1. Well-financed
A challenger may not have more money than an incumbent, but a successful one needs enough to compete.

2. Pre-existing base of support in the district
Fly-by-night challengers to incumbents almost always lose. The best ones start off with a base of supporters and volunteers that can match, or even surpass, the incumbent.

3. Knows how to exploit incumbent’s problems
Most incumbents have vulnerabilities. Great challengers know how to expose them and use them to their advantage.

4. Works HARD
Incumbents almost always have money, institutional support and some base inside the district. Great challengers counter their advantages with sheer hard work, often over long periods of time.

Here are the best challengers from Montgomery County over the last four election cycles, along with why they were so special. Note the occasional input from our fabled spy network.

4. Rob Garagiola, defeated Republican Senator Jean Roesser (D-15) in 2002

Twenty-nine-year-old Rob Garagiola seemed cast by Hollywood as an ambitious, energetic young politician. The 2001 Montgomery County Democrat of the Year and former paratrooper started campaigning against the 72-year-old incumbent over a year before the general election. But the race almost did not happen as District 17 Delegate Cheryl Kagan was nearly redistricted into District 15 for a challenge to Roesser. When that fell through, Garagiola was off to the races for a clean shot at the incumbent.

In 2002, District 15 was a swing district. Roesser, a Republican, had knocked off incumbent Democrat Larry Levitan in 1994. Partisan dynamics did not guarantee Garagiola victory in a good year nationally for the GOP. So he knocked on tons of doors, poured in nearly $200,000 in self- and family-financing and beat the incumbent by just 755 votes, or two percentage points. Garagiola’s work ethic still shows in his excellent fundraising and ascension up the leadership ladder in Annapolis.

3. Phil Andrews, defeated County Council Member William Hanna (D-3) in 1998

Andrews, once a high-level amateur tennis player and then the director of Common Cause, is Montgomery County’s undisputed champion of door knocking. He put that skill to good work in defeating a four-term incumbent in a district race. Andrews, who is a former MCGEO member(!), also enjoyed substantial labor support in his first win. That is ironic considering that he is now one of labor’s greatest enemies in the county. Then and now, Andrews refuses PAC and developer contributions.

Spy: Long out of step politically with his district, Bill Hanna had almost been defeated more than once. In a three-way race, though, the anti-Bill votes were divided. In 1998, the field was just two candidates. Phil hustled the progressive votes and ran circles around Hanna.

Spy: Phil had already run an energetic, but unsuccessful campaign for Council at-large in 1994, so he knew a lot about campaigning. The district race was better suited to his strengths as a likable, retail, door-to-door campaigner. His youthful energy and good looks worked to his advantage against the then 77-year-old Bill Hanna, who had developed a reputation as a curmudgeon and a bit of an eccentric. Hanna had alienated labor unions (which Andrews would also eventually do) and had particularly alienated the gay community by opposing domestic partner benefits, which also hurt him among liberals.

2. Jamie Raskin, defeated Senator Ida Ruben (D-20) in 2006

It is certainly true that Senator Ruben, who had spent over thirty years in Annapolis, self-destructed in 2006. But Jamie Raskin was ideally suited to capitalize on her problems. Smart, liberal and devoid of pretense, Raskin was able to bring together Ruben’s enemies (including supporters of banished former Delegate Dana Dembrow) with District 20’s diehard leftists to engineer a stunning coup of Ruben. Raskin had an all-star campaign team boasting David Moon, Ryan O’Donnell, Miti Figueredo, Rebecca Lord and Jonathan Shurberg and a seemingly limitless army of volunteers. He even nearly equaled the incumbent’s fundraising, collecting $227,542 vs. Ruben’s $253,202. Despite making the Apple Ballot, Ruben was blown out by 33 points - the worst performance of any MCEA-endorsed incumbent in that cycle.

1. Chris Van Hollen, defeated Senator Patricia Sher (D-18) in 1994 and Congresswoman Connie Morella in 2002

How many Maryland politicians have knocked off a State Senator, a Member of Congress and a Kennedy? Just one: Chris Van Hollen.

Van Hollen’s 2002 campaign for Congress, during which he defeated District 15 Delegate Mark Shriver in the primary and incumbent Republican Congresswoman Connie Morella in the general, is well-known throughout the county and is even the subject of a book. But he would probably have never made it to Congress if he had not already knocked off another incumbent eight years before. Van Hollen was first elected to the House of Delegates from District 18 in 1990. Four years later, he ran against Senator Patricia Sher, a freshman in the upper chamber who had spent three terms in the House.

Spy: This is one of the most interesting races. Van Hollen was a Sher protegé - she picked him from a crowded field of aspirants to run on her “pro-choice” slate when she challenged longtime incumbent Margaret “Peg” Schweinhaut for the District 18 Senate seat in 1990. But then the young, ambitious Van Hollen bit the hand that fed him and took advantage of District 18’s history of volatility to take out his patron.

Spy: This was a combination of the self-destructing incumbent (see Ruben vs. Raskin, 2006) running into the ambitious, smart, hard-working young challenger.

Spy: Chris out-organized Patty and was already coasting to a big victory. She then shot herself in the foot in a Wash Post interview. Chris won huge and brought in newcomer Sharon Grosfeld on his coattails.

Spy: My most distinct memory of the campaign was this: Chris was already leading in the perception of those following the race (I don’t know if there were any polls), when Patti shot herself in the foot, head, and all parts of her body. During an interview with a TV station, she said in effect that “all the blacks in Annapolis are corrupt and on the take.” Whoa! Patti was not racist, but that stupid statement clinched it for Chris. She doubled her error by claiming she thought the conversation was off the record. Oy!

Spy: Sher did her best to vote pro-business and annoy EVERY municipal official in her district. Also, there was her racist comment at the end of the campaign. Chris just pointed all this out. Also, Chris smartly (does he ever make mistakes?) chose NOT to build a slate against the incumbent delegates (thereby assuring that they would not campaign).

The end result of all of the above was an incredible 50-point blowout for the then-35-year-old Delegate over the Annapolis veteran. Van Hollen’s ability to combine ground game, message, discipline and organization makes him both an outstanding candidate and a great adviser to other candidates, as national Democrats were pleased to find out in 2008. Maryland’s incumbent U.S. Senators better hope that he never runs against them.

So what are the lessons for incumbents from this series? First, if you are not lazy, perform your job decently and lack lots of enemies, you will very likely be re-elected. As one of our informants says, “Basically, if you are an incumbent, and you knock on doors, don’t offend anyone, vote the wrong way or pick your nose (in public) you win.” But as we have seen above, every election cycle generates at least one great challenger. Say a prayer every night that he or she is not living in your district!

Read More...

Summary only...

Gaithersburg West Opponents Praise and Pan Council Candidates

Gaithersburg West Master Plan opponents who run the Scale-it-Back website have issued an Election 2010 Scorecard that evaluates County Council candidates. Some will love it and some will hate it. Let’s find out who the lovers and haters will be!

Scale it Back devised an eight-point rating scale for every candidate. Five points are derived from votes and comments made during the planning process. Three points are derived from remarks made at the May 12 County Council at-large forum. This is unscientific to be sure, but most civic activists feel they can learn who to trust and who is giving them the run-around during a process of this nature. Such is the gist of this evaluation.

Here are the raw scores for every candidate.

Marc Elrich: 8
Phil Andrews: 5
Hans Riemer: 4
Sharon Dooley: 4
Fred Evans: 3
Roger Berliner: 2
Duchy Trachtenberg: 2
Jane de Winter: 2
Mike Knapp: 1
George Leventhal: 1
Ilaya Hopkins: 1
Becky Wagner: 1
Ike Leggett: 0
Valerie Ervin: 0
Nancy Navarro: 0
Nancy Floreen: 0

And there is more. For a few of them, Scale it Back included some choice comments. You sure can’t fault them for being shy! Here is what they had to say about the county-wide candidates, as well as their own Council Member, Phil Andrews.

Marc Elrich (8)

Marc Elrich worked very closely with the community during the Gaithersburg West Master Plan process and represented us on the Planning, Housing and Economic Development (PHED) Committee.

Phil Andrews (5)

Phil Andrews worked very closely with the community during the Gaithersburg West Master Plan process. He is very involved in the community and has made several trips on foot through each of the neighborhoods in order to get to know the residents and hear their concerns first-hand.

Fred Evans (3)

Fred Evans, former Principal of Gaithersburg High School, has a thorough understanding of our educational system and is a strong believer in resident-participation in government and managed growth.

Duchy Trachtenberg (2)

Duchy Trachtenberg proposed a Health Impact Assessment for the area around the Gaithersburg West Master Plan study area and community involvement in the master plan implementation. We will be watching closely to see if these plans are carried out.

She was adamant that the Gaithersburg West Master Plan be approved for its monetary value to the county, even though it is questionable whether the Fiscal Analysis supports the notion that the development approved in the Master Plan will be to profitable for the county. Any plan that relies on $2 billion of infrastructure improvements should have been analyzed very carefully and this was not done.

George Leventhal (1)

George Leventhal, during the Gaithersburg West Master Plan process, expressed his lack of concern for the residents. Obviously he had made up his mind to pass the plan and having to deal with the residents was clearly distasteful judging from his mocking comments and his manic performance at the Quince Orchard Town Hall Meeting.

He showed no concern for the many problems that will result from the addition of 40,000 workers and 20,000 residents to the “Science City” area which is about 1.5 square miles in a suburban residential area, five miles from the Metro.

He did not ask for additional information or clarification on any of the issues, inconsistencies or inaccuracies brought up by Phil Andrews, Marc Elrich or the residents. His mind was made up.

From comments on the Apple Ballot, Maryland Politics Watch, June 4, 2010:

"George Leventhal: The two-term incumbent is now firmly in the driver’s seat. Leventhal will have all the money he needs, almost all the big endorsements (except possibly the Post’s) and will wage a solid campaign. We expect him to finish first in the at-large race for the second election in a row. If that happens, Leventhal will be a top contender to be the next County Executive."

What a scary prediction! A person with such obvious disdain for the concerns of the residents is ill-suited for county government at any level.

Ike Leggett (0)

Ike Leggett showed little or no interest in the unprecedented amount of opposition to the Gaithersburg West Master Plan. The Fiscal Analysis, which came from his office, was questionable on a number of issues. Challenges made by Phil Andrews and Bragi Valgeirsson were dismissed by Diane Schwartz Jones from Leggett’s office by saying the Fiscal Analysis is “an art not a science.”

Nancy Floreen (0)

Nancy Floreen was completely absent from the discussions of the Gaithersburg Master Plan even though she sat on the Planning, Housing and Economic Development (PHED) Committee. This committee is expected to evaluate the plan very carefully in order to make a recommendation to the full Council. She didn’t ask questions or expect clarification even though Marc Elrich and Phil Andrews brought up a multitude of issues and irregularities in the plan.

She was obviously there to approve the plan and didn’t care to be bothered with the facts.

Plain and direct language is the mother’s milk of blogging, and this is a lot of spilled milk! Given the fact that the Gaithersburg West Master Plan was passed by a compromise, there is some question as to how potent the issue will be at election time. Marc Elrich will clearly enjoy support from the opponents, as well as the City Councils of both Gaithersburg and Rockville. Whether the issue has a further impact will depend on how organized the opponents remain and how much resonance the issue will have in the local area over the next three months.

Read More...

Summary only...

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.

Read More...

Summary only...

Phil Andrews Comments on Gaithersburg West

County Council Member Phil Andrews, who opposed the original Gaithersburg West Master Plan but voted for the compromise that passed the council, released the following statement on the issue today.

# # # #

Thanks to effective, sustained advocacy by many individuals and community organizations—including the Gaithersburg-North Potomac-Rockville Coalition, the North Potomac Citizens Association, Residents for Reasonable Development, the Sierra Club, the Action Committee for Transit, and, crucially, by the Mayors and Councilmembers of Gaithersburg and Rockville—the County Council made several vital improvements to the Draft Gaithersburg West Master Plan proposed by the County Planning Board. As a result, the Great Seneca Science Corridor Master Plan approved (on a preliminary vote) by the County Council yesterday should achieve the equally important goals of enabling substantial expansion of life sciences and health care services while protecting surrounding communities from unacceptable levels of traffic congestion.

Important changes made by the Council to the Planning Board’s proposal include:

• Scaling back the potential commercial development from 20 million square feet to 17.5 million. Given that the existing Gaithersburg West Master Plan allows 13 million square feet of commercial development, the reduction from an additional 7 million square feet to 4.5 million additional is 35 percent.

• Providing protection against unacceptable levels of traffic congestion. This was done by eliminating the recommendation that the acceptable critical lane volume (CLV) of cars per lane per hour be increased to 1,600. The Council kept the standard at a much more acceptable 1,450 cars per lane per hour. The Planning Board’s own traffic speed projections showed that rush-hour traffic in Gaithersburg West at the proposed level of 20 million square feet of commercial development would be in the 9 miles per hour range by 2030, but that Germantown (where even more jobs are planned and a 1,600 CLV is part of the Master Plan) would have average rush-hour speeds in the 18 to 21 mph range. Keeping the CLV at 1,450 means that traffic mitigation improvements for intersections will be triggered at a much earlier stage than if the acceptable congestion standard were 1,600 cars per lane per hour.

• Requiring that 5,700 new housing units be part of the transportation staging plan (like the commercial development). The Planning Board did not include the new residential units in its proposed staging plan.

• Requiring that the Corridor Cities Transitway not only be fully funded for construction from the Shady Grove Metro to Metropolitan Grove (the Planning Board proposal), but that it be at least halfway constructed before Stage 3 can begin—which is when commercial development could be built that exceeds what is already allowed under the existing master plan.

• Establishing requirements for the non-auto driver mode share (NADMS) that are fixed rather than increasing from a highly questionable assumption that the current NADMS share is 16 percent. The percentage of workers who would need to arrive at work other than by driving alone is required to be 18 percent by the beginning of Stage 2, 23 percent by the beginning of Stage 3 and 28 percent by the beginning of Stage 4.

• Requiring stronger language in the Master Plan regarding protection of the view of the historic Belward Farm, and allowing a transfer of density from Belward to the Life Sciences Center (LSC) Central, the area of the plan appropriate for highest density.

• Including much more detailed descriptions of how the Master Plan will achieve environmental sustainability (e.g., a specific target for tree canopy), use open space and provide connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods.

• Enhancing the Master Plan recommendations for parks in general, and on Belward in particular, where the proposed 300-foot buffer with two soccer fields has been changed to the Muddy Branch Park and the Park is included in the staging.

• Requiring an implementation monitoring committee be established by the Planning Board that would produce a biennial report to the Council and Executive.

• Requiring that an advisory committee be established consisting of stakeholders, including the cities of Gaithersburg and Rockville, and surrounding unincorporated communities, to make recommendations regarding the plan as it develops.

• Requiring additional affordable housing (30 percent on housing planned for the current site of the Public Safety Training Academy) and the purchase of building lot termination easements to protect farmland in the Agricultural Reserve.

The Council will soon take up the Life Sciences Zoning Text Amendment. I will work to ensure that a substantially higher percentage of jobs in the areas zoned as a Life Sciences Zone (Belward and Life Sciences Central in the Great Seneca Science Corridor Master Plan) are required to be life sciences jobs than the present proposed percentage of 30 percent.

During the past week, Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee Chair Mike Knapp and I worked closely together, and with our colleagues, amended the plan in a way that enables substantial growth in the Life Sciences Center while also providing the needed protections against unacceptable traffic impacts. I thank Councilmember Knapp and our colleagues on the Council, and salute the many municipal and community leaders whose ideas and hard work helped shape this important master plan.

I will continue to work closely with all stakeholders to help ensure that the master plan is well-implemented and that communities are protected.

# # # #

Read More...

Summary only...

Sierra Club to Score Gaithersburg West

In a recent email to Council Members, the Sierra Club states that it will score candidates' positions on Gaithersburg West in determining its endorsement. We reprint the email below.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Hauck
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 10:40 AM
To: Floreen's Office, Councilmember; Knapp's Office, Councilmember; Leventhal's Office, Councilmember; Andrews' Office, Councilmember; Elrich's Office, Councilmember; Trachtenberg's Office, Councilmember; Navarro's Office, Councilmember; Berliner's Office, Councilmember; Ervin's Office, Councilmember
Subject: Sierra Club adds Gaithersburg West to its voting scorecard

Dear Council members:

The Montgomery County Group of the Sierra Club is developing a scorecard of Council votes over the last four years. This scorecard will be an important element as we decide on our endorsements for Council in the 2010 elections.

The scorecard is unfinished but we want to alert you to one issue that will weigh heavily on our endorsements. This issue, the Life Sciences Center within the Gaithersburg West master plan, will come to you for decisions within the next few months.

The Countys development pattern and the associated transportation investments are the most environmentally consequential decisions that officials make. If balanced urban growth around our Metro stations reflects our hopes for a more sustainable future, then sprawl-inducing, car-demanding, unbalanced growth on our suburban fringes embodies the worst of our fears. The damage is compounded when the plan allows sprawl development at urban densities, proposes an uncertain and inadequate transit system to serve the development, and calls the result smart growth. Worst of all is creating de novo a large, dense center far from any Metro station, at the request of an ambitious land owner.

As we have said many times, our issue is not with a Life Sciences Center as such. There are proposals on the table to enhance the Life Sciences Center(s) without creating such havoc with sustainability.

We will watch closely the outcome of Council decisions on this plan. We expect the Council to agree on a plan that, to paraphrase the late Council member Betty Ann Krahnke, represents not a compromise but a solution, that promotes prosperity and sustainability.

Sincerely,

David Hauck

Chair
Sierra Club, Montgomery County Group

Our Take:

In the past, the ICC was the number one issue for MoCo environmentalists. But the Sierra Club's opposition to the project was largely washed out by the Washington Post's support for it and when their endorsements clashed, they at least partially neutralized each other. So both ICC supporters (like Nancy Floreen and George Leventhal) and ICC opponents (like Phil Andrews and Marc Elrich) - all of whom were strong candidates in other respects - got elected. Now that the ICC is headed for completion, the Sierra Club and the Post will have to move on to other criteria for endorsements.

If the Sierra Club is serious about shrinking and/or altering Gaithersburg West, one possible result is that a decision on the project's master plan could be put off until after the election. The issue could also affect the at-large County Council race. The District Council Member who represents Gaithersburg is Phil Andrews, who opposes the significant increase in density contained in the plan and would like to spread jobs to other parts of the county. If both Andrews and the Sierra Club wind up basing their support for at-large candidates on their positions on Gaithersburg West, that will make this issue a weighty one in the election.

Read More...

Summary only...

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!

Read More...

Summary only...

Andrews: Interest Group Leaders "Want to Defeat Me"

In a recent fund-raising solicitation, Council Member Phil Andrews cites MPW research demonstrating his reliance on individual donors and asks for contributions because "interest group leaders... want to defeat me."

Andrews' solicitation, which we will print in graphic form below, reads:

January 2010

Dear Friend,

Each day that I enter the County Council chamber I look at the County Seal that bears the motto, Gardez bien, which means “Guard well.” That is the primary job of a public official: to ascertain and guard well the public interest, to guard well the integrity of government, and to guard well the treasury to ensure public funds are wisely spent. I have done my best to guard well since I raised my hand on December 7, 1998 and was first sworn in as a member of the County Council.

Guarding well is why I championed the County’s Smoke-free Restaurant law (the region’s first) and the County’s Living Wage law. It’s why I’ve led the battles for property tax relief, and to preserve the Office of the Inspector General, the County’s watchdog against waste, fraud and abuse. It’s why I’ve worked hard to protect communities from overdevelopment and intolerable traffic congestion. It’s why I have strongly criticized the $12 daily roundtrip ICC tolls as both self-defeating and exclusionary. It’s why I’ve led the fight against ambulance fees. And guarding well is why, as president of the Council last year, I led the effort to ensure that the County addressed a large shortfall in revenues in the wisest and fairest ways possible: by spending less while protecting education, public safety, and the most vulnerable; by avoiding employee layoffs through eliminating $125 million in pay raises; and by holding the line on tax rates.

A recent comprehensive analysis of campaign contributions to federal, state and county elected officials in Montgomery County from 1999 to 2009 published by the blog Maryland Politics Watch found that I received a larger percent (98.8%) of contributions from individuals than any other official. As executive director of Common Cause/MD, I led the successful fight for the first limits on political action committee (pac) contributions in Maryland elections. Since I first ran for the County Council, I have refused contributions from PACs and development interests because maintaining public confidence in government is the responsibility of every official.

As I campaign for re-election in 2010, I again will depend on the generosity of you and other public-spirited people for campaign contributions, since I refuse funds from interest groups. In standing up for the public’s interests, I have angered the leaders of some interest groups who want me to put their groups’ interests first. These leaders want to defeat me. If you agree I’ve guarded well the public interest, I ask that you support my campaign by sending a check to Friends of Phil Andrews, using the enclosed envelope. Thank you for your help.

With best wishes for 2010,

Phil Andrews

P.S. Every dollar you contribute helps. Please send a check today to Friends of Phil Andrews. Also, please provide your email address, which I will keep confidential, on the response form. Thanks.

16428 TOMAHAWK DR, GAITHERSBURG, MD 20878
P: 240-683-3777
AUTHORITY: FRIENDS OF PHIL ANDREWS
JOE PALKA, CHAIR
PAMELA T. LINDSTROM, TREASURER

Andrews' solicitation refers to our Follow the Money series, in which we found that he led all other MoCo candidates in percentage of contributions from individuals, received zero money from unions and almost no money from businesses and obtained almost 96% of his contributions from in-state donors. Andrews has always rejected contributions from developers and PACs. We did not examine the former issue, but we found that he has kept his promise to turn away PAC contributions. Andrews' self-imposed contribution restrictions have not hurt him as he has always had enough money to compete and blew away a sitting Rockville City Council Member in 2006.

Which interest groups want to defeat Andrews? The business community dislikes his views on restricting growth, but more than a few respect his fiscal conservatism on the budget. They have not targeted him in a serious way since Doug Duncan's End Gridlock slate ran Bob Dorsey against him in 2002. Labor was at first a fast friend of Andrews, supporting him in his 1998 upset of incumbent Bill Hanna. Andrews was so close to labor in his early days that the Gazette once accused him of being in bed with MCGEO, the county government employees union. The Gazette wrote the following in a 1999 editorial opposing Andrews' living wage law:

Why is this legislation suddenly before us?

Because the government employees union wants to handcuff officials seeking cost effective ways through privatization to provide services that its high-cost bureaucracy can no longer afford.

The union, in effect, reached an understanding with the bill's sponsor, Phil Andrews. It would staff his telephone banks and get out the vote for him on election day, and in return he would introduce this bill.

What irony! This is the kind of quid-pro-quo that would have sent Andrews scurrying to his fax machine to issue a denunciation during his days at Common Cause.

Instead, he does the bidding of a union that has tried to obscure the pursuit of its self-interest by positioning itself as a champion of the working poor.

While we cannot locate any evidence that the Gazette's accusation was true at that time, this sort of arrangement is inconceivable today. Since 2003, Andrews has been a reliable vote against most things desired by the unions. His lone wolf opposition to the Fire Fighters' 20-year retirement clause was just a prelude to his later efforts to crack down on all county employee compensation. The unions' problem now is that Andrews' relentless door knocking and superior constituent service makes him nearly invulnerable in his Rockville-Gaithersburg district. In any event, no challenger has yet stepped forward to take him on.

The real question with Phil Andrews is not whether he wins re-election. He almost certainly will. Instead, we are interested in whether he will endorse any candidates in the County Council at-large race and the District 17 Senate race. And we are also interested in where he will be going in 2014.

We reprint Andrews' fundraising letter and an accompanying flyer below.

Read More...

Summary only...

Phil Andrews Asks Governor to Lower ICC Tolls

Council Member Phil Andrews has written Governor Martin O'Malley to ask him to lower the tolls planned for the ICC. Andrews has been an ICC opponent throughout his political career and protested ICC tolls back in 2005, when they were to be set at 17 cents per mile at peak hours. Now they are planned for 25-35 cents. The Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA) does not report directly to the Governor, but he does appoint its nine-member board, which his chaired by the Secretary of Transportation, to three year staggered terms. Following is the Council Member's letter.

December 18, 2009

Honorable Martin O’Malley
Governor, State of Maryland
Annapolis MD 21401

Dear Governor O’Malley,

Yesterday, the Maryland Transportation Authority, whose members you appointed, approved unaffordably high tolls for the Inter-County Connector (ICC). These tolls will cost $3,000 per year for ICC commuters who travel daily end-to-end during peak hours. For many workers who earn $50,000 per year, that will be six percent of their pre-tax salary. Even if the economy were healthy, six percent of someone’s salary is too much to ask.

I am writing to request that you use the full power of your office to reverse this decision. If unchanged, the high tolls will prohibit drivers from using the road, thereby ensuring that the $3 billion ICC fails to take significant traffic off local roads.

During the 2002 election, the ICC was sold to the public as the best way to provide widespread traffic relief. No one mentioned high tolls that make the road unaffordable to many people with limited incomes. I don’t recall you mentioning them in your 2006 gubernatorial campaign. Asking the public to finance a road that many can’t afford to use amounts to a “bait and switch.”

You alone among state officials had the power to stop the ICC, and you have been noticeably silent on the now-approved ICC tolls. Whether the ICC becomes an historic boondoggle because of chronic under use is up to you. Whether the ICC becomes the embodiment of regressive public policy is up to you. The ICC will be your legacy.

Please apprise me of your views on the approved ICC tolls and what you intend to do if you disagree with the high tolls approved by the Maryland Transportation Authority.

Sincerely,

Phil Andrews
Montgomery County Council

Read More...

Summary only...

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."

Read More...

Summary only...

Phil Andrews Looks Back on 2009

County Council President Phil Andrews sent out the following memo to the council reflecting on his term as President in 2009. Your author offers one additional note. Regardless of our occasional disagreement with Andrews on the issues, he has served as President with considerable class and dignity. His civil temperament is a useful model that warrants emulation from the next Council President, whoever that may be.

MEMORANDUM

November 30, 2009

TO: Councilmembers

FROM: Phil Andrews, Council President

SUBJECT: Council Actions of 2009

By any reasonable measure, the Council accomplished much this year for the people of Montgomery County. We did this by listening to our constituents, and by working hard and well together. Outstanding work by staff aided us immeasurably. Attached is a summary of major County Council actions of 2009. Here are some highlights:

A landmark accomplishment was – despite the deepest recession since the Great Depression – approval of a budget that protected employees from layoffs, that reduced spending wisely while protecting essential services and safety net programs, that adhered to the Charter Limit, and that did not raise tax rates. For the first time since 1992, tax-supported operating budget spending is less than the prior year’s. The Council and County Executive agreed on core budget principles from the start to the finish of the budget process, and the County kept its AAA bond rating.

With regard to transportation, 2009 has been a landmark year. The Council unanimously recommended to the state three transportation projects of regional importance: the Purple Line, the Corridor Cities Transitway, and widening I-270 by adding two reversible lanes. Now, we need to work with our state and federal officials to get funding to build these projects as soon as possible to provide traffic relief to our constituents. The Council also approved planning funds for another landmark transportation project: a 100-mile system of bus rapid transit lanes.

In 2009, the Council opened two long-needed, landmark facilities: the West Germantown Fire Station, and the Family Justice Center, which has already served more than a thousand victims of domestic violence since it opened in April.

The Council also took landmark actions to improve accountability by reforming the disability retirement system, requiring Internet posting of spending of $25,000 or more, empowering the Inspector General to hire counsel, calling for suspension and reform of the tuition assistance program, and requiring single-subject bills to enable a clean, clear vote on an issue by preventing unrelated issues from being combined.

Sadly, this year we lost Don Praisner. Don’s staff soldiered on magnificently, and councilmembers and staff looked out for District Four. I especially thank Council Vice President Berliner for serving on a third Council committee during that difficult time.

Thanks for the hard work you did that produced these results for our constituents, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to serve as your president this year.

2009 Council Actions on Budget, Education, Public Safety, and Transportation

Budget (FY 2010)

*Avoided layoffs by not funding general wage increases for 33,000 County- funded employees (22,000 are MCPS employees), saving $125 million
*Protected essential services and safety net programs while approving a tax- supported operating budget less than the prior year’s (first time since 1992)
*Kept to Charter Limit on property tax revenues and didn’t increase tax rates
*Did not approve an early buyout estimated to cost $16 million over 10 years
*Did not approve a proposed expansion of the take-home car program for County police officers who live up to 15 miles outside of the County
*Approved a mid-year savings plan of $30 million

Education
*Approved 100% of Montgomery County Public Schools’ educational request in the operating budget and school construction request in the capital budget
*Approved legislation creating a Workforce Investment Scholarship program to provide tuition assistance for Universities at Shady Grove and Montgomery College students pursuing degrees in fields with labor shortages
*Rejected Planning Board proposal to raise threshold school facilities payments from developers from 105% of cluster capacity to 110%
*Rejected Planning Board proposal to allow developers to borrow capacity within a cluster to avoid the school facilities payment or a moratorium

Public Safety
*Approved funding for the Family Justice Center, which opened in April
*Opened the Germantown West Fire Station; Germantown East underway
*Approved funding for 14 new ambulances
*Rejected the County Executive’s proposed ambulance fee regulation
*Evaluated speed camera program, and approved its expansion
*Approved a federal grant for a pilot program of video cameras in patrol cars
*Approved purchase of the former National Geographic property to meet public safety space needs, including for the Rockville District Police Station *Did not support the County Executive’s plan to add a MCPD helicopter unit
*Approved legislation to improve pedestrian and vehicular safety by prohibiting large trucks and RVs from parking on residential streets
*Approved a policy to ensure that sidewalks and walkways are built in a way and with materials that prevent tripping hazards for pedestrians

Transportation
*Recommended construction of the Purple Line, the Corridor Cities Transitway, and the widening of I-270 by adding two reversible lanes *Rejected Planning Board proposal to accept more congestion on roads by lowering acceptable average traffic speeds
*Approved funding to prevent elimination of 18 bus routes
*Approved $500,000 to plan a countywide system of bus rapid transit
Additional Major County Council Actions – 2009

Affordable Housing
*Approved an increase in the Housing Initiative Fund over FY 2009 to preserve affordable units, leverage financing for new affordable housing

Campaign Finance Reform
*Helped persuade the Montgomery County Delegation and the House of Delegates to approve legislation giving the County authority to pass more comprehensive campaign finance disclosure requirements for County elections than required by the State; however, the bill died in the State Senate

Economic Development
*Approved the Germantown Master Plan
*Approved purchase of Webb Tract, and purchase of the Finmarc property to relocate government facilities to make room for major housing development around the Shady Grove Metro as called for in the Shady Grove Sector Plan
*Council advocacy/letter of financial support helped persuade the State to locate the Maryland Clean Energy Center at Universities at Shady Grove
*Provided funding for Bethesda Green incubator, a public-private venture

Employment of People with Disabilities
*Approved establishing a hiring preference for people with disabilities who apply for County government jobs and are rated in the highest category
*Approved requesting the Charter Review Commission to review whether the Charter should be amended to establish a special hiring authority for people with disabilities (similar to the Federal Government’s Schedule A)

Energy Conservation
*Approved a law establishing the Home Energy Loan Program; regulations are under development; funded solar/geothermal/new windows tax credit
*Approved reducing energy consumption in County government facilities by four percent in FY 2010, a savings of $1.1 million

Environmental Protection
*Established and appointed a Clarksburg Water Quality Task Force

Government Reform
*Approved a law reforming the disability retirement system to help ensure that meritorious claims are approved and non-meritorious claims are not *Approved law requiring internet posting of County government spending of $25,000 or more (takes effect in 2010)
*Approved a law enabling the Inspector General to hire independent counsel
*Approved a law limiting Council legislation to a single subject to prevent unrelated non-meritorious measures from being included in meritorious bills
*Upon Council urging, tuition assistance program suspended; reform pending

Health Initiatives
*Approved law requiring that the calories in meals be listed on menu boards, and that other nutritional information be available on request
*Approved law allowing the Drug Enforcement Forfeitures Fund to be used for drug prevention, drug treatment, and Drug Court
*Added funding to maintain youth tobacco prevention programs
*Approved expanding the free summer lunch program for students

Libraries
*Affirmed the policy of free parking for patrons of County libraries by reimbursing Rockville for library patrons who use the City’s garage

Mansionization
*December 2008 Council-approved law took effect, reducing the size of new homes allowed in smaller-lot zones to protect existing neighborhoods

Parks and Open Space
*Approved the purchase of a 52.9 acre addition to Fairland Recreational Park
*Approved $5 million to terminate building rights in the Agricultural Reserve
*Opened the Matthew Henson Trail and Broad Acres Local Park

WSSC Infrastructure
*Approved funding to accelerate inspection/repair of large-diameter pipes

In addition to acting on the measures above, the Council worked hard to improve outreach to the public and strengthen relationships with other government officials:

Public Outreach
*Council held three televised town hall meetings, and televised a significant number of committee meetings as well as all Council sessions
*Council held five public hearings on the FY 10 budget, and two evenings of public hearings each on the Gaithersburg West Master Plan and on the White Flint Sector Plan in order to hear from all who wished to testify
*Councilmembers attended hundreds of community events
*Council president did weekly media briefings/question and answer sessions
*Council president did three live call-in shows with the County Executive
*Council funded a professional, independent 2009 Resident Survey to learn what residents think about County Government (results will be out soon)
*Council heard from local business leaders during fiscal update briefings

Strengthening Working Relationships with other Government Officials
*Met separately with each of the County’s five representatives in Congress
*Met with County Executive Leggett, the County Attorney, the Board of Education, Montgomery College, the Planning Board, the Board of Appeals, Montgomery County General Assembly leaders, municipal officials, and WSSC

Read More...

Summary only...

Andrews: Widen I-270, BRT for CCT

County Council President Phil Andrews, who represents Rockville and Gaithersburg, has issued a memo explaining his support for adding two reversible lanes to I-270 and constructing the CCT as bus rapid transit.

Andrews favors adding two reversible lanes to I-270 that would be restricted to carpools, buses, motorcycles and drivers paying a congestion-priced toll. His rationale is that adding two lanes rather than four would save hundreds of millions of dollars and reduce adverse impacts of the project. He favors BRT on the CCT because of lower cost, greater federal competitiveness and the fact that high density in Gaithersburg West, which he opposes, would be necessary to make light rail cost effective.

Two months ago, we identified Andrews as the key voice on the I-270 debate. The fact that he represents a district that is home to much of the I-270 project, the CCT and the Gaithersburg West master plan combined with his previous opposition to the ICC and refusal to take developer contributions makes him difficult for road opponents to target. Now that Andrews has come out in favor of a build option for I-270, the County Council seems likely to debate competing build options rather than arguing over build vs. no-build. The council is scheduled to vote on a recommendation for both I-270 and the CCT tomorrow.

We reprint Andrews' memo to the rest of the council below.

Read More...

Summary only...

MDOT Goes Schizo on Gaithersburg West

So would the Planning Board’s proposed Gaithersburg West Master Plan be a bad idea because it would gridlock local roads and require vast sums of money to redo intersections? Or would it be a good idea because it would make a light-rail CCT cost effective? According to the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), the answer is both.

In September, we reported that two MDOT subsidiaries, the State Highway Administration (SHA) and the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA), wrote a letter of concern to the County Council about the Gaithersburg West plan. In language expressed in an unusually strong dialect of bureaucratese, the agencies objected to the $1.3 billion cost of rebuilding interchanges that would be necessitated by the plan. They also stated their belief that the plan’s reliance on commercial space over housing would draw in commuters from other areas, thereby increasing the strain on the regional transportation network. The implication of these arguments is that the plan’s density, currently proposed at 20 million square feet of commercial space, should be reduced.

However, there may be a positive impact of the plan’s density: it could help build the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) as light rail. In July, we reported that Gaithersburg’s current density level generated ridership that would make bus rapid transit (BRT), but not light rail, competitive under federal cost effectiveness criteria. But in a new letter that we reproduce below, MTA believes that if the CCT were re-aligned through the bulked-up Science City proposed by the Gaithersburg West plan, it would gain a 15-40% boost in ridership. Since capital costs would only go up by 11-16%, the CCT might now be viable as rail. The Gazette reported that MTA’s CCT project manager told the council that the new alignment through the dense area of the plan would have a cost effectiveness range of $18-19 per hour of user benefit, which is superior to light rail on the Purple Line. But the density proposed by the Gaithersburg West plan is required to make these numbers work.



This poses an interesting question to the County Council, which will soon decide on the density to be allowed in the Gaithersburg West plan. On the one hand, almost everyone prefers rail to BRT. The County Executive, the business community, many state legislators and Action Committee for Transit are all on the record for rail. And even though the council’s Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment (T&E) Committee recommended BRT, it reserved the right to change its mind if higher densities permitted the feasibility of rail. The county’s pro-rail mindset does not apply to the CCT alone, but reflects a general sense that BRT cannot handle long-run high ridership capacities and is a “second-class” option compared to trains.

But there is also intense resistance to both the scale and the form of the Gaithersburg West plan from the civic and smart growth communities. The former will fight endlessly against a “city” in their midst while the latter has not yet acknowledged the tradeoff between density and transit mode.

How will this play out at the County Council? Let’s remember that Council Members are not planners. They are unlikely to whip out spreadsheets and plat maps and rewrite the Gaithersburg West plan wholesale. But they will adjust the density levels. The current allowable density in the plan is 20 million square feet of commercial space. The County Executive would like to see 18 million. Some on the council would like to go lower. In these sorts of situations, the natural inclination of politicians is to pick a number that everyone can live with.

But this is not a conventional split-the-difference issue. The problem is that MDOT’s schizophrenic messages reflect the actual facts on the ground. The Gaithersburg West plan would require huge infrastructure costs and it would enable a light-rail CCT. Density reductions would lower costs but might also result in BRT. Council President Phil Andrews, who represents Gaithersburg, sees this tradeoff clearly. Andrews told the Gazette, “I don’t think that light rail can be the tail that wags the dog, or is the Holy Grail here, either. It’s not the end goal. The end goal is to build a better community for everybody and to figure out what that balance is." For Andrews, that means cutting density no matter what the consequences for transit mode.

How will the rest of the council see this? We’ll find out soon enough.

Read More...

Summary only...