Thirteen candidates showed up in Chevy Chase tonight for the second to last candidate forum--or so I am told--of the at-large campaign season. The debate was sponsored by a panoply of municipalities and organizations from around the area. Channel 16 covered it so you should be able to watch it. Here are my impressions on how candidates struck people--less about the specifics of what they said and more about style.
As mayor, I got to introduce the candidates--a great example of a politician taking credit of the hard work of others in putting the forum together and Charles Duffy for moderating it. The candidates looked like they were ready to throw me off the stage when I suggested that elections are like reality TV in that you actually get to vote people off the island--a thought I admit was inspired by viewing of Top Chef last night and perhaps by a post on the delegate race in District 18 inspired by Project Runway four years ago. Perhaps I was on firmer ground when I spoke about all the important decisions they get to make.
George Gluck (Green) lost me when he said that the solution to the economic crisis in a nutshell is that we all need to stop shopping at Barnes and Noble in Bethesda and go to the Cricket Book Shop in Ashton instead to keep money and jobs in the County. Reinforced the impression of Greens as well-meaning but utterly impractical and a bit kooky.
Duchy Trachtenberg (D) had one really good theme that resonated well and one that sounded a little tinny to me. The good theme is making tough choices in tough times. In short, it makes a virtue out of Duchy's loss of political support from unions--a smart and sensible response to the choices she has made in office that fits the mood of the times--not to mention the Post. In contrast, Duchy recitation of Ike's endorsement and how we can only trust experienced hands now rang false as it left me wondering why one should have supported her four years ago.
Despite starting off the debate by complimenting his fellow incumbents, George Leventhal (D) quickly lost any chance of taking home the Mr. Congeniality statuette. A bull in a china shop, George is tough and argumentative rather than pleasant and controlled, and sometimes clever instead of convincing. His tone is the one I try to keep out of my classroom teaching--the one that suggests you're a real idiot if you disagree with me--reinforced with a frown and crossed arms. Folks, we even nearly had a Saturday Night Live moment brought to life when he went after Jane de Winter. But hey, I guess you can't argue with George's electoral success.
In contrast, Nancy Floreen (D) came across as an adult who has firm convictions and a grasp of the facts but keeps her head. Like George, Nancy has strong opinions and defends them armed with a quick mind and grasp of the issues.. However, she managed to make her points, and even correct people, without looking like she was berating them or being unpleasant. Not an easy balance but one Nancy carried out with conviction. Looked like a Council President.
Jane de Winter (D) benefited from being George's target and having a sense of humor about it as she turned George's attack on her fiscal sense and her advocacy for education into a family anecdote about an adult handling a child. One can debate about who won the point but the optics of standing up to a bully were good as Jane held her own as she made an impression--something challengers have to do. Seated wrongly as a "W" instead of a "D", de Winter got to sit in the center of the pack.
Raj Narayanan (D) came across as an outsider with economic knowledge but lost credibility when he urged the audience to vote for him and Marc Elrich--mainly because it looks weak and because he apparently urges support for himself and a different incumbent at each forum. Nonetheless, he was a fresh face to me and I enjoyed his contribution.
Hans Riemer (D) was the candidate who really gets that debates are not just about what you say but the impression you make. Though younger than the other Democrats, he came across as calm, likable, and knowing the notes he wanted to hit, particularly reinforcing the message of his recent mailer on seniors. Though some will ask where's the beef? his competitors did not press this point as at other forums.
Becky Wagner (D) had an ability to relate governmental problems to both her past experience and to make clear points on complex issues. As with Jane de Winter, I got the impression of someone who has worked hard in the community and earned her spot up there. Becky came across as clear-eyed even if one wondered about her stands on issues as her responses sometimes could be read a number of ways--not necessarily a bad thing when one is trying to corral voters with diverse opinions.
Marc Elrich (D) must have been good in the classroom. He has clear views but also looks like someone who is practical, knows a lot, is willing to talk calmly with others, and thinks that politics is about bringing people together to solve the community's problems. In short, another grown up. He elicited the only applause for the night when he mentioned his bus-rapid transit proposal.
Fred Evans (D) seemed like a nice enough fellow but did not leave much of a memory--bad news for any candidate, I'm afraid.
Robert Dyer (R) wanted you to know that he is the man with the fiscal plan. Very intense. I confess I don't know what to make of Republicans with pony tails. The repeated references to Fantasy Island didn't help. I resisted urges to stand up from the back of the auditorium and shout: "The plane! The plane!"
Mark Fennell (R) brags about being a tea-party candidate in his literature but oddly sounded more interested in making sure that developers pay their fair share for infrastructure in addition to standard Republican fiscal concerns. I preferred the guy on stage to his written materials. Mark is sort of an inverse Bob Ehrlich who looks great in his ads but really should never be allowed to debate.
Brandon Rippeon (R) woke me up with a resonant voice and a passionate presentation but then disappointed with his anodyne attack suggesting that increasing gang violence indicates that the county council has provided bad value for its money. Like Hans, Brandon is a young, fresh face but has a very different style.
Note: I have endorsed Marc Elrich and Jane de Winter. I apologize for any votes this loses them.
Saturday, September 04, 2010
At-Large MoCo Council Debate at the 4H in Chevy Chase
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
District 4 General Election Precinct Final
At 10:35 PM with all 45 precincts in, Nancy Navarro has 6,637 votes (63.36%), Robin Ficker has 3,423 votes (32.68%), George Gluck has 372 votes (3.55%) and write-ins accounted for 43 votes. 10,475 votes were cast and turnout was 8.78%.
Robin Ficker is perhaps the most famous Republican in Montgomery County still trying to run for office. Yet, his voting percentage was actually below little-known Mark Fennel's in the 2008 special general (33.44%). In November 2008, 35,270 District 4 residents voted for the Ficker Amendment (51.3%). But less than one-tenth of them voted for Ficker in this election. Apparently, the popularity of the anti-tax issue did not translate into personal popularity for Ficker.
Ficker's name recognition, while significant, is offset by his baggage. Check out the results of a simple Google search on his name.
Other than the heckling articles and his website, the first page of search results contained his Just Up the Pike profile and two MPW posts: our questioning his residency and our description of his history in politics. Both of those posts have received several dozen direct visits every day over the last several days. Special election voters tend to be exceptionally well informed about candidates and they may very well have considered that information in the voting booth.
District 4 General Election Results (Updated)
At 9:07 PM with 31 of 45 precincts reporting, Nancy Navarro has 4,152 votes (62.01%), Robin Ficker has 2,276 (33.99%) and George Gluck has 243 votes (3.63%). There are 25 write-in votes and 6,696 total votes. Turnout so far is 5.62%.
Last year, Don Praisner defeated Mark Fennel by 6,123-3,092 (66.22-33.44%). Turnout was 8.90%.
Update: At 9:32 PM with 37 precincts in, it's Navarro 4,885 (62.58%), Ficker 2,617 (33.53%), Gluck 277 (3.55%) and write-ins 27. Total votes are 7,806 and turnout is 6.55%. It's interesting that Robin Ficker's percentage is virtually identical to Fennel's last year. Who could think that Ficker would draw the same level of support as an unknown like Fennel?
Update 2: At 9:53 PM with 42 precincts in, it's Navarro 5,768 (62.60%), Ficker 3,078 (33.41%), Gluck 327 (3.55%) and write-ins 41. Total votes are 9,214 and turnout is 7.73%. There are only 3 precincts left to be counted.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
It’s All Over But the Voting
By Sharon Dooley.
Wednesday evening the final debate of the Council District 4 campaign was held at Sherwood High School in Sandy Spring. This evening was sponsored by two local groups - Sandy Spring-Ashton Rural Preservation Consortium (SSARPC) & Greater Sandy Spring Green Space.
It was obvious that fatigue has crept in like those fogs mentioned in Carl Sandburg’s poetry …on little cat feet. None of the candidates were spouting fiery rhetoric, although Robin Ficker at times returned to his favorite lines about the voters being the ATM for the council. But, he even forgot his handwritten prop about taxes, which had to be retrieved by one of his sons who were in attendance with their mother. Ah yes, when all else fails – bring in the family to show what a man of the people the candidate might be.
Taking note of MPW recent posts, Ficker did claim to be among the residents of Council District 4 and introduced one of his sons as the actual farmer on the family farm in Boyds, (the one where the candidate no longer lives, if he is to be believed). He also benefited from a rude and noisy cheering section, which made frequent and often inappropriate outbursts; all were discouraged by the moderator.
The two other candidates in this upcoming Tuesday election were also there. George Gluck - the Green candidate - is a serious man, an engineer and grandfather who cares about such things as global warming and free trade and other progressive issues and his sincerity shone through his remarks. He also spoke of living in the Brookeville area previously and noted he had a real appreciation for the quaint town and other rural areas nearby where the residents are trying to preserve historic areas and open spaces.
Nancy Navarro, recently returned from her native country of Venezuela and the funeral of her mother, who died suddenly, seemed subdued, but did not cave under the attacks of Ficker, or the accusatory questions his supporters submitted. Living in the most diverse district council district was a theme she returned to, as she mentioned ensuring services for all residents of the county. She stuck to the issues she had identified early on in the race as the core components of her campaign – reaching out to the minority members of District 4, promoting her successes on the Board of Education and speaking of the need to bring jobs and affordable housing to the eastern portion of the county. She also mentioned the needs for safety and security for our elder residents. She spoke of painful education budget cuts and sacrifices of the union members who turned back raises that they were expecting. She plowed no new ground, nor was she expected to at this late date. Each candidate was more in safe mode – not willing to make a mistake that might provide any opening for an opponent to exploit in a last minute mailing or robo-call.
Growth was a concern on the minds of the sparse audience as questions concerning zoning and the ICC were asked as well as future development. Navarro – who touted her Sierra Club endorsement – spoke against the ICC and the fact that Council District 4 would suffer disproportionately from the devastating effects of this highway, which has been questioned by many over the years. Gluck mentioned the deforestation that has already occurred. Ficker claimed the negative environmental effects will be worsened by the shopping malls and high rises that will appear at each ICC interchange and mentioned the need to replace devastated parklands. He claimed that development dollars, which fuel politics, will be in play in this area.
None of the candidates voiced support for the plan to move the Wheaton Library to the urban center as is planned. Each mentioned the need for the new planning board member to be smart and independent; Navarro spoke also in favor of a new member who could support Smart Growth concepts.
In closing statements, Navarro repeated her themes, mentioned the schools, which are the jewel of Montgomery County and the need to protect the quality of education for our community. She spoke of the need for a council member to speak up for the neighborhoods as a voice for those locals who might not be heard on the council.
Gluck was philosophical in a benediction to his campaign, speaking of lessons learned while sometimes speaking truths before their time. He mentioned his hope for progressive issues such as verifiable voting, campaign finance reform and an instant run-off system. He quoted Mark Twain in mentioning that “Irreverence is a Champion of Liberty and its’ only sure defense.”
Ficker was rambling in his closing and mentioned that all of his campaign funds had come from District 4 residents – a statement not verified by this writer! He claimed that the council was spendthrift and irresponsible with taxpayer dollars. He repeated his frequent ATM remark and noted that his multiple petitions over the years had garnered over 2 million votes (not mentioning the costs to the taxpayers of dealing with all of the defeated petition drives during this time.) He repeated that he was a man of the people who had lived in the county his entire life and he would do a good job and not be aloof; in proof he gave out his cell phone number if any in the audience had questions.
So District 4: The horses are in the starting gates – you can stay home and let the wrong winner be selected, you can vote your party and if turnout is along registration lines, elect a Democrat, or you can confound the experts and vote for a 50 to one third party candidate. The choice is up to you. But if the Preakness were any harbinger, I’d say keep your eyes on the filly in the race – she may well gallop to the finish!
Sunday, April 19, 2009
District 4 Campaign Finance Reports, Part Two (Updated)
The second and last pre-primary reports due on April 10 are now mostly online. Nancy Navarro’s filing is not online but we obtained it directly from her campaign. Following are the cumulative receipts and spending totals for the candidates for both reports, as well as items of interest.
Ben Kramer
Beginning Balance: $316.44
Contributions: $2,875
Loans: $50,000
Expenditures: $50,118.54
End Balance: $3,072.90
Kramer has consistently led all candidates in receipts by loaning himself 95% of his campaign’s funding. His spending total is close to Nancy Navarro’s, but lags because she started with more than $40,000 left over from last year.
Kramer had five individual contributors since March 24 who gave him a combined $675, three of whom are newsworthy. Hilde Alter of Rockville gave him $100. Alter is the Chief Accounting Officer of Medical Office Properties Inc., a real estate manager based in Chevy Chase that once owned a portfolio of medical office buildings. Board of Education Member Laura Berthiaume defeated incumbent Steve Abrams in large part because of help from MCEA. That did not stop her from giving $100 to Kramer, who is running against MCEA-endorsed Nancy Navarro. And Kensington Mayor Pete Fosselman, who endorsed Navarro in 2008, gave $200 to Kramer. That’s an interesting decision because the Town of Kensington is dependent on the District 5 County Council Member for constituent services. Unfortunately for Kensington residents, that Council Member is Valerie Ervin – Navarro’s strongest ally.
Kramer paid staffer Tom Smith (who used to work for Martin O’Malley and Marylanders United to Stop Slots) $4,000 this period. That makes Smith’s total take $8,000, more than what Kramer has paid former Praisner campaign manager Eric Hensal ($6,000). Kramer spent $21,030.52 this period on mailings and postage and $1,568.80 on printing and campaign materials. His biggest ad buy was a $675 purchase in Washington Jewish Week.
Cary Lamari
Beginning Balance: $0
Contributions: $4,432.24
Loans: $10,000
Expenditures: $4,260.54
End Balance: $10,171.70
Lamari led all candidates in contributions with $3,592.24 last time but only collected $840 in this period. Three contributors stand out. DiSalvatore Realty gave him $100. John DiSalvatore owns the shopping center property on the northwest corner of Georgia and Norbeck, right next to one of Ben Kramer’s properties. Dale Tibbitts, Council Member Marc Elrich’s Chief of Staff, gave him $100. And George Leventhal, one of four County Council Members who endorsed Navarro, contributed $100 to Lamari. When I asked Leventhal about that, he wrote me, “Cary Lamari asked me for a contribution and I was happy to respond. He is a dedicated and sincere advocate for Montgomery County neighborhoods.”
Lamari spent $2,361.46 on postage and $166.21 on printing and campaign materials in the most recent period. Lamari is known by many in Leisure World because of his activism on Georgia at Norbeck and on the ICC, but his total spending is likely not enough to build his name recognition in other parts of the district.
Nancy Navarro
Beginning Balance: $43,220.69
Contributions: $28,645
Loans: $0
Expenditures: $66,573.63
End Balance: $5,576.95
Navarro has received more in contributions (not including loans) than the rest of the candidates combined. Nineteen individuals and entities have given her $500 or more during this election so far. Collectively, they account for 76% of her receipts. They are:
SEIU MD/DC State Council: $3,000
BUILD-PAC of Maryland: $3,000
Mid-Atlantic Laborers Political Education Fund: $2,500
Friends of George Leventhal: $2,000
Democratic Women’s PAC of Maryland: $2,000
United Food & Commercial Workers Union: $1,000
Sheet Metal Workers Local 100: $1,000
MCGEO Local 1994: $1,000
James Soltesz, Potomac, MD: $1,000
Artery Development LLC: $750
Amalgamated Transit Union COPE Account: $500
Milagros McGuire, Bethesda, MD: $500
Hispanic Democratic Club: $500
Jeffrey Zane Slavin, Chevy Chase, MD: $500
David Weiss, Chevy Chase, MD: $500
Bethesda Center LLC, Washington, DC: $500
David D. Flanagan, McLean, VA: $500
R. William Hard, Potomac, MD: $500
Shirley Brandman, Bethesda, MD: $500
Soltesz is the CEO of Loiederman Soltesz Associates, a land development firm. Milagros McGuire and her husband, Dennis McGuire, are retirees who frequently contribute to Democratic candidates. Slavin is the President of C.J. O'Shaughnessy, Inc., a real estate firm, and is the Mayor of the Town of Somerset. Weiss is a member of the Greater Bethesda-Chevy Chase Chamber of Commerce. His company, Monty LLC, is a Montgomery County developer. Bethesda Center LLC’s address (3299 K St. NW Ste. 700) matches The Bernstein Companies, a major metropolitan development firm. Flanagan is President of Elm Street Development, a residential developer that built Clarksburg Village. Hard is the Executive Vice-President of LCOR, a development firm. Brandman is the current President of the Board of Education.
Other contributors of interest include Board of Education Member Chris Barclay ($175), District 20 Delegate Heather Mizeur ($150), former District 5 County Council candidate Hans Riemer ($150), Verizon Communications ($125) and Board of Education Member Judith Docca ($100).
During the 2009 special election, we estimate that labor unions supplied 31% of Navarro’s funding. In the first pre-primary report, SEIU Local 500 reported a $2,500 in-kind contribution for the services of Jackie Lichter, their political director who is now working as Navarro’s deputy campaign manager. No in-kind contribution appeared on the second report. We do not know of any union contributions to any other candidate besides Navarro.
Navarro spent $23,430 on media this period, an amount that far exceeded Kramer ($965.44) and every other candidate. Almost all of it went to TruPolitics LLC, a consulting firm based in Ellicott City. She paid salaries to three staffers: campaign manager David Moon ($3,500), Ken Silverman ($1,015) and Alexis Reed ($1,000). She has advertised on both CBS Radio ($900) and Radio America ($450). She is the only candidate to rent a campaign office.
Incidentally, while the State Board of Elections (SBE) does not have Navarro’s report, it was compiled one day before the April 10 deadline. That fits with her campaign’s claims that a transmission error prevented it from getting to SBE. As a campaign treasurer myself, I can attest to the problems with its atrocious ELECTrack software. See the date report on her submission below.
During the latest period, Republican Andrew Padula received $475, Green Party candidate George Gluck collected $230 and Democrat Thomas Hardman received $80. The other candidates do not have reports listed on the State Board of Elections website. These totals are simply not enough to mount a competitive campaign. In last year’s special election, Steve Kanstoroom loaned himself $47,573.96 and finished third in the Democratic primary with 10.76% of the vote. A candidate with no money and no name recognition has no chance.
Disclosure: I am the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. Our Mid-Atlantic Regional Council gave Navarro $6,000 last year, the maximum amount allowed by the state. I have not donated any money to any District 4 candidate and am not volunteering for any of them.
Update: An informant points out that Elm Street and LCOR, two of Navarro’s contributors, specialize in projects near Metro stations. That fits with Navarro’s views on transit-oriented development.
Friday, April 17, 2009
District 4 Candidates Respond to Help Save Maryland
Four candidates have responded to the questionnaire issued by nativist/extremist group Help Save Maryland: Democrat Thomas Hardman, Republicans Robin Ficker, Lou August and Andrew Padula and Green Party member George Gluck. Here are the candidates' statements from their completed forms.
Thomas Hardman, Democrat
I’m sick of special interest groups promoting the invasion of our sovereign nation and subversion of the rule of law. I’m sick of pandering politicians that will cave at the slightest whisper from the lawyers and Unregistered Agents of Foreign Powers that work endlessly to undermine the legacy of our Founding Fathers. I welcome and will assist every decent person who waits patiently for their turn to legally and reasonably come to the USA to become American. But for lawbreakers, I give NOTHING but endless opposition and my most vituperative expressions of OUTRAGE.
Lou August, Republican
Many of our schools have large populations of children from families of illegal immigrants. My wife is a substitute teacher in MCPS and she frequently recounts the significant behavioral issues of children she works with, many from children she suspects are illegal immigrants. Almost by definition, many of these families come from turbulent distressed backgrounds, which often has a negative impact on their children’s behavior. The result of this is a damaged learning environment for all students, even those here legally whose parents’ tax dollars support the entire system – all during a time when education is more important than ever. If we address illegal immigration issues earlier, these very significant consequential impacts will be reduced or eliminated.
The later in the “consequence chain” we address illegal immigration, the greater the humanitarian impact on the immigrant and community when enforcement is finally enacted. Our first steps need to be reducing the attractiveness of Montgomery County to illegal immigrants through methods such as enforcing E-Verify, requiring proof of legal residency to get a drivers license, and a timeline for ratcheted-down customs enforcement by county police.
Robin Ficker, Republican
We need to enforce the single-family zoning laws to protect homeowners.
Andrew Padula, Republican
There are hundreds of millions of people living in abject poverty in this hemisphere. Unfortunately we cannot offer refuge to all or even a significant part of this population without risking the very fabric of our nation. We are robbing developing nations of the core of their workforce this leaving in their void nations populated by women, children, the elderly, and infirm, who are ill equipped to fend for themselves.
There is a direct inverse proportional relationship to the rise in Mexican and Central American cartel violence and our acceptance of an ever increasing population of illegal immigrants. In itself, our misplaced intentions of kindness are in fact supporting the tragedy of human rights abuses on a mass scale. When the concept of slavery is re-introduced into our free nation through indentured servitude and sex slavery, there is a big problem afoot.
The acceptance of “illegal immigrants” also sets up a two-tiered societal structure that opposes the even handed rule of law. More importantly however is the fact that the utilization of this underground workforce inhibits the natural flow of economic development by unduly influencing the marketplace for both wages and the prices of goods. I believe that it would be a far better course of action to encourage these individuals to return to their home countries and to rebuild them from within rather than to risk a societal upheaval in the United States that may very well preclude us from ever being able to genuinely assist any more developing nations in the future.
George Gluck, Green Party
I believe that we do not so much have an “illegal immigrant” problem as much as we do an “illegal employer” problem. Enforcing existing laws which hold employers culpable for hiring illegal immigrants will result in a much lower demand for illegal workers. From a recent NPR broadcast about the present dearth of day labor openings: The other day I told my wife on the phone, “If I can just get a plane ticket – however I can find the money for that – I’m coming back to El Salvador.”
Friday, April 10, 2009
District 4 Debate Shorts: The Candidates
Yesterday, we explored the candidates’ positions on the issues. Today we’ll assess each candidate individually.
Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19)
Kramer was impressive in both debates he attended (ACT/Sierra Club and Young Democrats). He is intelligent, displays a solid command of issues and, most of all, he projects an air of leadership. Even though Nancy Navarro has more experience in public office, Kramer comes across as more of an incumbent.
Kramer regularly mentions his bills in Annapolis, especially those that crack down on crime and protect seniors. On issues, he emphasizes job creation, economic growth and funding for transportation. Kramer is the only candidate who regularly mentions the need to redevelop the Wheaton Central Business District, a major plus for this author. He tries to position himself as a statesman and emphasizes his endorsement by County Executive Ike Leggett. Consider these two statements:I want to reach out to the County Council Members to formulate a plan for Montgomery County and we should not personalize those issues.
Kramer’s weakness is that he is almost humorless in public. Audience members respected him but did not warm up to him. In the Young Democrats debate, Kramer grumbled twice under his breath about being asked a question last. Kramer’s best moment came when he recounted his shock at the sight of his foreclosed former family home. That was good for him because it showed the audience that a wealthy man born to many advantages could still relate to the circumstances of most county residents.
As a state Delegate, I have proven I am thoughtful and independent. One of the things I’ve learned in Annapolis is that you get a lot further from cooperation than confrontation. You don’t take issues personally and you move on.
Former Montgomery County Civic Federation President Cary Lamari
Lamari is an unreconstructed civic activist with a capital “A” and brings all the pluses and minuses of that pedigree. Like many dedicated activists, Lamari has a lot of experience and can speak with great detail about county functions, especially on growth policy. But he lacks the polish of a professional politician.
Lamari’s stump speech goes something like this:Montgomery County is reaching a crossroads. We can head in one of two directions. One direction is more growth, decreased quality of life and more taxes, all getting out of control. The other direction is a strategic plan for growth and taxes.
Lamari brings back many issues to growth policy. He often says that every new unit costs $36,000 in county services, but only $8,000-16,000 is collected from developers. In his view, the county’s budgetary health and its ability to provide all manner of services to protect residents’ quality of life goes back to the amount of growth it allows. “The more we grow, the deeper we dig the hole.”
Lamari has the opposite problem from Kramer. While he often projects warmth and good humor, he does not carry the statesmanlike demeanor of the Delegate from District 19. That said, there is an inherent honesty about Lamari in that what you see of him is what you are likely to get.
Board of Education Member Nancy Navarro
I attended three District 4 debates last year and two of them played out the same way: the other candidates, led by Don Praisner, piled onto Navarro over alleged “fiscal irresponsibility” and the school system’s “unsustainable” union contracts. Navarro fended off the pressure as best she could but it was a harsh political baptism. This year, she is a much better performer. She delivers her message with clarity and class and never responds to any bait dangled by other candidates.
Navarro emphasizes job creation, smart growth and the need to reach out to District 4’s residents. She is the only candidate who regularly mentions that District 4 is a majority-minority jurisdiction. Tipping her hat to President Obama, she never fails to mention her background as a “community organizer.” Navarro points to a need to “look at taxes on developments” and “coordinate infrastructure before we go ahead with redevelopment.” She even references the salary concessions given up by the school unions, saying, “Compromise is why we were able to get our unions to give up $89 million early on.”
One issue Navarro faces is that Kramer looks like the incumbent when in fact she has almost double his experience in public office (55 months vs. 28 months). She would benefit from being more assertive. For example, she has not mentioned that she is the only candidate who has had a leadership role on multi-billion dollar budgets. This is a common problem for female candidates who risk coming across as abrasive when they try to demonstrate leadership skills in the same way that men do. We asked one of the county’s savviest female politicians about this. She said, “It’s true there is a different standard for women… The best you can do is contrast yourself with the other candidates with a big smile on your face. Be charming about it.”
Rob Goldman
Goldman is a smart, personable young lawyer from Burtonsville who is making his first run for office. At times, he seems to be attempting to persuade the audience to hire him for legal representation rather than the County Council. Consider these statements:I intend to vigorously represent all District 4 residents.
Goldman regularly talks about the need for economic growth and more attention for Burtonsville. His handicap is that he has very little working knowledge of how the county operates. For example, when he called for allowing developers to have greater density in return for more affordable units in the ACT/Sierra Club debate, he seemed to have no idea that the county’s Moderately-Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) program already does that. As a result, Goldman tends to speak in generalities and seldom approaches the specifics of Kramer, Lamari, Navarro and Hardman.
The important thing is that you listen to your client’s or your constituent’s needs.
My goal is to diligently represent all the individuals in District 4.
But Goldman has brains, talent and speaking skills. He had one of the best lines of the Young Democrats debate when he said, “I’m an attorney and I have three-year-old twins. My days are full of conflict and my nights are full of chaos.” We certainly need fresh faces in this county and maybe Goldman can be one of them. Whatever happens in this race, Goldman should stay active in his community, pay his dues and meet more people to prepare for the future. He may be better suited for the House of Delegates than the County Council.
Michael Bigler
Left to right: Thomas Hardman, Rob Goldman, Michael Bigler.
Bigler is a nice older gentleman who reminisces about his experience in the Lions Club. He is given almost solely to generalities such as the following:I’ll be honest with you. I don’t want to see taxes raised at all.
Bigler’s only specific proposal is to impose ambulance fees. He did have one great line in the Young Democrats debate. When asked what his most contentious moment was, he replied it was “when I went home and told my wife I was running for office.”
If there’s no infrastructure, as far as I’m concerned, there can’t be any growth.
I don’t have all the answers. I’ll look to you for the answers.
Thomas Hardman
Hardman is an Aspen Hill resident who ran as a Republican for State Delegate in 2006 and in last year’s District 4 special election (when he received 97 votes in the Republican primary). Now he is running in the Democratic primary.
Hardman believes in limiting development, cracking down on code enforcement against illegal subletting and improving use of information technology on the schools. He is a voracious reader who knows much more about county programs than Goldman or Bigler.
But Hardman’s biggest problem is that he does not believe in the Democratic Party regardless of his current voter registration. When he dropped his Republican registration last October, he wrote this concerning a discussion he had about politics with his friends:I pointed out that having been twice rejected by the voters of my respective State and County districts, and having got passed over by them in favor of bozos and people making unkeepable promises, I wasn’t too sure I even wanted to legislate on behalf of those folks, and in fact might not think highly enough of them to do a good job, should by some incomprehensible fluke I might actually be elected…
If these really are Hardman’s views about the Democratic Party, then he should not be running in its primary.
As the most unpopular Republican in the Councilmanic District 4 Special Election primaries, I figured I might as well consider myself unacceptable to the Republicans and have since changed my voting registry to Unaffiliated. This means that if I want to get on the ballot for the next go-round, I have to collect about 2500 signatures, more or less. That would take lots of time…
I can’t register and run as a Democrat because in my opinion all of the things that most desperately need done or changed in MoCo simply cannot be done under the current Democratic Party here. It’s not that the ideas are bad or that the need is not there, it’s that the votes cannot be there, because the Democrat Party platform here cannot let the votes be there, or even have the issues considered. I can’t run as a maverick Democrat, not because nobody would vote for me -- look at the State District 19 near-total replacement of the incumbents and favorites in the last elections -- but because the Party would destroy me and anything associated with me, simply for having ideas of which the Central Committee didn’t approve.
The Republicans and George Gluck
Robin Ficker with his favorite statistics.
Robin Ficker is the most famous of the three Republicans but he is also the most one-dimensional. He is almost solely concerned with taxes. Ficker’s references to “our district” and “we” are appalling because he just moved into District 4. Add to that his unapologetic violations of election law and this statement made during the Burtonsville debate:Ike Leggett and I got 80% of the vote for County Executive. We will work together to lift this district.
Andrew Padula is an interesting person with a long career in jazz. Lou August is a businessman and non-profit founder who is unhappy with inefficiencies in county government. George Gluck is running as a progressive environmentalist. Each of them needs more resources to have a shot at winning. The fact that only 10 people attended the sole Republican debate bodes ill for the party.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
District 4 Campaign Finance Reports (Updated)
Most of the District 4 campaign finance reports due on March 24 are finally online. Here’s what they say.
Ben Kramer
Beginning Balance: $316.44
Contributions: $2,200
Loans: $23,000
Expenditures: $21,353.78
End Balance: $4,162.66
Kramer led all candidates in receipts, primarily by loaning himself $23,000 (93% of his take). That follows past practice; he loaned himself $130,450 during his 2006 Delegate race.
Kramer had 10 individual contributors, led by former U.S. Senate candidate Josh Rales ($1,000). While Kramer promised Alison Klumpp that he would not accept money from “developers” (even though Klumpp calls him one), three of Kramer’s contributors have links to the real estate industry. Lydia Funger McClain of Potomac ($250) is the daughter of Morton Funger, a principal of development firm Ralmor Corporation. McClain is also a former part-owner of Home Properties Inc., which is seeking to redevelop part of the Falkland Chase Apartments in Silver Spring. Steven Jacobson of Rockville ($250), a principal of law firm West & Feinberg, heads the firm’s commercial leasing practice. And Rales heads up RFI Associates, which his bio describes as "one of the leading investment companies in the area, specializing in acquiring, renovating, and overseeing real estate projects." That means that contrary to Kramer’s pledge to Mrs. Klumpp, his leading outside donor is a developer. Rales is also a former Republican who contributed money to George W. Bush.
Most of Kramer’s other donors are lawyers and businessmen, such as Paul Hastings attorney Behnam Dayanim ($200), Loomis Sayles Vice-President Aileen Rappaport ($100), Sandglass Systems co-founder David Fraser-Hidalgo ($100) and former M. Stein & Company owner Jerold Samet ($100).
Kramer has two paid staffers: campaign manager Eric Hensal ($6,000) and Tom Smith ($4,000). He has paid for banners, palm cards and lapel stickers, received a voter list from MCDCC and has sent out at least one mailing. Large Kramer billboards are appearing on properties owned by his family around the district.
Cary Lamari
Beginning Balance: $0
Contributions: $3,592.24
Loans: $10,000
Expenditures: $1,726.87
End Balance: $11,865.37
Lamari led all candidates in individual contributions. His contributor list reads like a who’s-who roster of the civic movement, including prominent activists Margaret Dennis ($250), James Fary ($100), Rocky Lopes ($100), Dan Wilhelm ($100) and Stuart Rochester ($50). Other contributors include former County Council Member Blair Ewing ($100) and MCDCC Secretary Elliot Chabot ($100).
Lamari has ordered 400 signs and posted one advertisement in Leisure World News but had sent no mailings at the time of the finance report. He has no paid staff.
Nancy Navarro
Beginning Balance: $43,220.69
Contributions: $2,090
Loans: $0
Expenditures: $33,444.44
End Balance: $12,151.14
Navarro started off with a big balance left over from last year’s special election. Her biggest contributors last time were unions and businesses, including developers. This time, the majority of her contributions so far have come from fellow School Board Member Shirley Brandman ($500), MCPS staffer Nivea Berrios ($300), Identity Inc. Executive Director Candace Kattar ($250), Impact Silver Spring Executive Director Frankie Blackburn ($150) and MCDCC Member Oscar Ramirez ($100). We cannot find evidence of any business or developer contributions in this report. SEIU Local 500 reported a $2,500 in-kind contribution for the services of its Political Director, Jackie Lichter, who is Navarro’s Deputy Campaign Director. No other unions have contributed so far. (My own union, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, gave a maximum contribution to Navarro a year ago and cannot give her any more money. I have not contributed to Navarro or any other District 4 candidate.)
Navarro has spent far more money than the other candidates early on. She paid $9,775 to Campaign Director David Moon, $1,672.67 to field worker Ken Silverman and $10,825.95 to consulting firm TruBlu Politics. Navarro replenished her coffers with a fundraiser shortly after the March 24 reporting deadline.
Democrat Michael Bigler contributed $500 to his campaign. Republican Andrew Padula contributed $300 to his campaign. Green Party candidate George Gluck loaned his campaign $647.43. Democrat Thomas Hardman has received no contributions or loans and has a $25 balance. As of this writing, the State Board of Elections has not posted any filings for Democrats Rob Goldman and Chris Paladino or Republicans Robin Ficker and Lou August.
The strangest contribution was received by the Lamari campaign. Roger Asbury of 11501 Dewey Road in Silver Spring was Lamari’s biggest contributor, giving him $1,000 on 2/18/09.
A simple Google search on Asbury reveals that he is a registered child sex offender. 
When we raised this issue with Lamari, he sent us the following statement:As a result of your inquiry, I have spoken to Mr. Asbury and explained that I will be returning his contribution. I had accepted the contribution because he appreciated my help on a zoning matter dealing with his produce business. I politely explained I was returning his contribution so as to not have any connection with the perception that I endorse the crimes he has been convicted of. I adamantly oppose the abuse of children and believe crimes against women and children are among the most horrible crimes commited. He has explained to me that his crime was 13 years ago, that he was incarcerated for two years in jail and has had psychiatric treatment since his release. I wished him well and requested my campaign treasuer to refund his contribution.
Update: Rob Goldman sent me the following affidavits stating that he has has not received contributions or made expenditures exceeding $1,000 in either of the pre-primary reporting periods. I cannot explain why the State Board of Elections does not post this information to its website.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to provide a factual and detailed explanation of events.
Cary Lamari
