Where Was George?

The question that people are asking after receiving an email newsletter from Council President Valerie Ervin that is signed by all county councilmembers except George Leventhal:

Dear Friends of Montgomery County:

As the Council gears up for its busy fall schedule, we want to update you on some key issues the Council will be addressing. We also want to share with you our perspective on the Council's recent actions.

Issues we will consider this fall range from the curfew bill proposed by the County Executive to the post-Census redrawing of Councilmember district lines. We will also take up several land use master plans that are vital to strengthening our economy and improving our quality of life.

Our agenda so far this year has focused on the severe budget challenges that the County, like governments across the nation, has continued to face. The Council acted unanimously on issue after issue and approved a $4.4 billion County budget for Fiscal Year 2012. We listened closely to the comments we received from thousands of concerned County service recipients and taxpayers, we consulted extensively with our employee representatives, and ultimately we spoke with one voice on how best to close the huge gap between projected expenditures and resources.

The Council started with three priorities: to protect our core services - education, public safety, and assistance for our most needy residents; treat our taxpayers fairly; and provide equity among our employees. In a series of 9-0 votes on controversial issues, we did just that. Even though the overall approved budget was actually smaller than the budget approved three years ago, we targeted the reductions carefully. For MCPS and Montgomery College, we focused on areas that do not affect the classroom. For some core services, we felt that the reductions proposed by the County Executive cut too deeply, and so we restored limited funds to Police, Fire and Rescue, Health and Human Services, Libraries, and other key operations.

One of our top goals was to protect our hard-working employees and their families from layoffs. Another top goal was to ensure fair treatment for the employees of all County agencies. We felt that the County Executive's recommended changes to health and retirement benefits for County Government employees were too large, and so we made them more equitable.

Another essential goal was to protect classroom instruction in our world-class school system while ensuring that scarce resources are available for all our critical priorities. The $2.1 billion budget we approved for Montgomery County Public Schools will help create a stable future for our schools and all County agencies. The tax supported budget that we approved for the school system was an increase over the last fiscal year.

In June, despite these budget challenges, the three major bond rating agencies reaffirmed the County's critical AAA bond rating, but the continued turmoil in financial markets makes clear that our challenges are far from over.

We are proud of the way the Council came together to act unanimously on this year's difficult budget. We are deeply committed to progressive values, and all of us care deeply about the concerns of our taxpayers, service recipients, and employees in this economy. We will continue to do the best job we can for the County's one million residents.

Sincerely,

Valerie Ervin

Council President

Roger Berliner

Council Vice President

Phil Andrews

Councilmember

Marc Elrich

Councilmember

Nancy Floreen

Councilmember

Nancy Navarro

Councilmember

Craig Rice

Councilmember

Hans Riemer

Councilmember

Read More...

Summary only...

Chevy Chase Candidate Forum

Montgomery County Council At-Large Candidates’ Public Forum, Thurs., Sept. 2, 7 p.m. At 4H Center in Town of Chevy Chase

Thirteen candidates running in the primary elections for Montgomery County Council At-Large seats will face off at a public forum on Thursday, September 2, at 7 p.m.

The four incumbent At-Large Councilmembers—Marc Elrich, Nancy Floreen, George Leventhal and Duchy Trachtenberg—will be joined by all but one of their registered challengers. These include five Democrats, three Republicans and one Green Party candidate.

Charles Duffy, host of Montgomery Municipal Cable TV’s “Political Pulse,” will moderate the discussion focused on major issues affecting County residents.

Cosponsored by 18 downcounty communities and community organizations, the event will be held at the 4H Center, 7100 Connecticut Ave., in the Town of Chevy Chase. It is the second in a series of three forums to inform residents about County and Maryland State candidates and their views, and to increase awareness of legislative actions that affect the quality of life in our area. The final forum on October 20 will feature candidates for State legislature.

The goal is to encourage more participation in elections that have a great impact on our day-to-day lives. With the theme 2010 County and State Elections: Why Care? the larger effort also includes educational materials about candidates and important local issues pending over the next four years.

Challengers participating in the September 2 forum will be Democrats Fred Evans, Raj Narayanan, Hans Riemer, Becky Wagner and Jane de Winter; Republicans Robert Dyer, Mark D. Fennel and Brandon Rippeon; and Green Party candidate George Gluck.

Co-hosts are Chevy Chase View, Chevy Chase Village, Chevy Chase West, Citizens Coordinating Committee on Friendship Heights, East Bethesda Citizens Association, Citizens for a Better Bethesda, Edgemoor Citizens Association, Garrett Park, League of Women Voters of Montgomery County, Montgomery County Civic Federation (MCCF), Presidents Council of Silver Spring Civic Associations (PREZCO), Rollingwood Citizens Association, Section 3 of the Village of Chevy Chase, Somerset, Town of Chevy Chase, Town of Kensington, Village of Martin’s Additions, Village of North Chevy Chase.

*****

Contact: Pat Burda, Town of Chevy Chase Councilmember
240-899-6216, patburda@aol.com

Read More...

Summary only...

Blast from the Past

Here's a quote from a Gazette editorial about the County Council.

The Montgomery County Council has struggled to maintain its relevance in the governance of our community in recent times. This past year in particular, the council’s performance has been disappointing, unfocused, contentious and unsettling.

One wonders how a sophisticated county, with a population of nearly a million people and a government budget of $3.9 billion, could elect representatives unable to come together on the challenges we face. The council has exhibited little capacity to cast politics aside and focus on the big picture. It allows too much access to political activists and treats public hearings as opportunities to lecture constituents and private and public leaders on how things should be done. Without regard to experience, leadership or vision, some members horse-trade the presidency like it is a two-bit, back-alley card game, leaving the public to suffer the consequences.

The time for a shake-up has arrived.

So was this written yesterday? Two weeks ago? No, folks, it was written in August 2006.

Read More...

Summary only...

Isn’t it Time for a Change?

Take a group of intelligent, caring and ambitious people. Throw them in a room and watch them rip each other to pieces. When they come out, see them explain that there’s nothing wrong and everything is great. Then send them back into the room and watch them go absolutely banana-cakes. Is this Reality TV?

No folks, it’s the Montgomery County Council! And the four at-large incumbents want you to watch this episode one more time.

Sit down with any member of the County Council. When you do, you will be likely to find a smart person with principles, at least a couple genuine policy objectives and a desire to perform well in the job. When you ask about why this Council Member entered politics, he or she will cite noble reasons – perhaps serving their neighbors, or helping the county grow intelligently, or seeking social justice. And this person will be telling the truth. Aside from perhaps one or two, the Council Members are not faking their beliefs.

But as a group, they are definitely less – MUCH less – than the sum of their parts. In public, the behavior of several of these Council Members has been appalling. Anyone who has regularly attended council sessions over the last four years knows this to be true. When one Council Member speaks, one or more of the others roll their eyes, make faces or exchange snickering whispers. The feuding of some members and their staffs, organized as nine wary fiefdoms, has been petty enough to shock thirteen-year-olds. The pitched wars that they waged over the special elections made the Battle of the Bulge look like a water-gun fight. Some will hold up each other’s good ideas just out of personal dislike or insecurity. On one occasion, one Council Member became so irritated by another that she actually walked out on a vote. And they richly deserved the label “Drama Queens of Rockville” after the hysteria of last year’s Council Presidency vote.

It was not always this way. Consider the last council, which served from 2002 through 2006. That council was borne of an ugly election in which two slates exchanged some of the most negative propaganda in county history. But after the election, the Council Members quickly found a way to work together. Consider who populated their ranks. Republican Howie Denis was a happy warrior who was liked by nearly everybody. Tom Perez was ambitious and clearly moving up, but he was also charismatic, pragmatic and focused on a liberal agenda that he truly believed in. Marilyn Praisner was a paragon of ethics and hard work. She may not have been universally liked, but she was universally respected. And while Steve Silverman was resented by some in the civic community, he was also an agile deal-maker who could step up and lead. Now all of them are gone. And for all their strengths as individuals, today’s incumbents have not found a way to continue the collegiality of the past. Instead, some of them (but not all) have repeatedly descended into the trenches of mud in ways that have heaped disrepute on their institution. Nearly everyone who deals with them has noticed.

Why did some Council Members behave the way they did? Because nobody could stop them: not the County Executive, not the staff, not the advocates, not anybody. There was no accountability and they ran wild. But those days are over because accountability is finally here: to the voters. And suddenly, the at-large incumbents are standing shoulder to shoulder. All the disputes of the past that were, according to them, never about personality or ego but rather about policy and grand principle are now forgotten. So were they not fighting over principle back then or have they sacrificed their principles now on the altar of re-election?

There is one huge problem with the at-large incumbents’ image of harmony: it’s an illusion. At least three of them want to run for County Executive in 2014. If all four are re-elected, they will be at each other’s throats the day after the primary. That means things could actually be worse in the next term than they have been in this one. Albert Einstein once defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Do the incumbents know something that Einstein did not?

All of the at-large incumbents have their fans. All have something to offer. (Well, OK, most of them.) And depending on your point of view, each can mount a credible case for re-election. Perhaps most of them deserve to return. But your favorite incumbent, whoever it is, will never be able to maximize his or her effectiveness on a future council as dominated – or maybe even more dominated – by pettiness, feuding, politics, back-stabbing and turf wars as the current one. This cycle must be broken and we are skeptical that this group of incumbents is capable of doing it without new blood.

Isn’t it time for a change? Think about it.

Read More...

Summary only...

Council to Hold Town Hall Meeting on June 16 at Leisure World

The County Council will be holding a town hall meeting at Leisure World on June 16 at 2 PM. Following is their press release.

Montgomery County Council to Host Leisure World / Northern Silver Spring Area Town Hall Meeting on Wednesday, June 16

Residents Invited to Express Their Views on Issues, Ask Questions of Councilmembers at Leisure World Social Hall

ROCKVILLE, Md., June 8, 2010—The Montgomery County Council will continue its efforts to find out what issues most concern residents when it hosts a Town Hall Meeting for the Leisure World / Northern Silver Spring area on Wednesday, June 16. The meeting at the Leisure World Social Hall will start at 2 p.m.

This will be the third Town Hall Meeting hosted by the Council in 2010. The Council is composed of President Nancy Floreen, Vice President Valerie Ervin and Councilmembers Phil Andrews, Roger Berliner, Marc Elrich, Mike Knapp, George Leventhal, Nancy Navarro and Duchy Trachtenberg. In February, more than 400 attended as the Council hosted its first-ever Town Hall Meeting for students. A capacity crowd attended a meeting at the Housing Opportunities Commission Office in Kensington in March.

Leisure World is located at 3700 Rossmoor Blvd. in Silver Spring. Non-residents of the community must check in at the security gate before proceeding to the Town Hall Meeting.

The meeting will enable residents to voice opinions on specific issues and will allow them to ask questions of the Councilmembers in an organized, but informal, setting.

Topics expected to be of interest include the public safety, traffic, growth, the County budget, health programs and taxes—including the recently increased energy tax.

“We recently approved the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that required closing a shortfall of almost $1 billion due to decreasing revenues,” said Council President Floreen. “We made some very difficult decisions that will impact every resident of this County. This meeting will allow us to hear from residents about their priorities and their concerns. It also gives us the opportunity to explain some of the issues that are before us.”

Council President Floreen said Town Hall Meetings are one of the avenues the Council has pursued to keep residents better informed.

“This Council has made a priority of having better direct communication with residents, and Town Hall Meetings have proven to be an excellent way to do just that,” she said. “For residents, these meetings provide a forum where they can see their elected officials in a different format than a televised meeting or through a news release.”

The meeting will be taped for later broadcast on County Cable Montgomery (CCM—cable Channel 6 on Comcast and RCN, Channel 30 on Verizon). Susan Kenedy, a producer for the county station, will moderate the meeting.

For more information about the Town Hall Meeting or about the broadcast times, call 240-777-7931.

# # #

Read More...

Summary only...

Scramble, Part Two

By Marc Korman.

In Part One, I discussed the scramble of the two political coalitions on the County Council made up of Nancy Floreen, Valerie Ervin, George Leventhal, Mike Knapp, and Nancy Navarro on one side and Roger Berliner, Marc Elrich, Duchy Trachtenberg, and Phil Andrews on the other. In Part Two, I will take a look at the ramifications for the election.

In my view, the biggest losers in the scramble are challengers. Once upon a time, someone like Becky Wagner was viewed as one side’s pick to knock off an at-large member allied with the other side. That means Wagner may have been able to count on that coalition directing resources to her including campaign donations and promoting her for endorsements. Now, Wagner and other challengers will be much more on their own. They may still get a lot of the same support, but it will be largely through their own hard work than relying on coalitions of incumbent Councilmembers.

In my own view, the biggest loser is likely Ilaya Hopkins in District 1. She appears to be the only challenger taking on an incumbent in a head to head district race. She needed to pull together a “coalition of the willing” to take on Berliner that could have included labor, the town of Chevy Chase, Rollingwood community members who wanted to vote to form a municipality, and the Councilmembers who voted against him as Council President. With Leventhal and Navarro endorsing Berliner, not to mention his receipt of the Apple Ballot, Hopkins’ path to victory has gotten a lot more difficult. She may never have wanted to run that type of campaign anyway, but it presented a neat little formula that is now impossible to follow.

Another person who suffers is Nancy Floreen. Floreen has never had the Apple Ballot and 2010 is no exception. But her best primary election was when she was part of a strong team, Doug Duncan’s End Gridlock slate in 2002. She would arguably be in a stronger position if she could have replicated that 2002 primary maneuver rather than the more go it alone approach of 2006 (when Duncan was not on the ballot).

The scrambling of coalitions is both good and bad. On the plus, it makes the Council much less contentious to not be lined up into two teams. They should be focused on policy and not gamesmanship. On the negative side, I would just say beware of entangling alliances. Although I crudely defined them, there were some differences in these two coalitions leading to them in the first place. I hope honest differences that still exist are not being shoved under the table as part of an incumbent protection program.

Read More...

Summary only...

Scramble, Part One

By Marc Korman.

At least since the special election to replace Councilman Don Praisner, conventional wisdom has held that the County Council was divided into two coalitions. Those coalitions rallied around separate candidates in the Council President selection at the end of 2009. But now, with the 2010 election looming, those coalitions have been scrambled.

In the United States, there is a general tendency to think of politics in a binary fashion, whether it is Federalists v. Jeffersonians, Whigs v. Democrats, or Democrats v. Republicans, third parties tend to: 1. Be swallowed by another party, those crazy Free Soil Party members all became Republicans; 2. Become one of the two primary parties, like the Republicans in the 1860s; or 3. Disappear entirely, what happen to all those Ross Perot supporters? Since 2006, the Montgomery County Council has been made up of nine Democrats, so instead of two parties we had two coalitions.

Speaking very generally, one coalition made up of Nancy Floreen, Valerie Ervin, George Leventhal, Mike Knapp, and Nancy Navarro gave stronger favor to the unions and development. The other coalition, again speaking very broadly, gave stronger favor to civic interests and was less supportive of the unions. The second coalition was made up of Roger Berliner, Marc Elrich, Duchy Trachtenberg, and Phil Andrews.

There is a fair argument to be made that these coalitions never really existed when it came to actual Council votes and were just a simple construct created by people like me. There is some truth to that. Most Council votes are either unanimous or involve strong majorities such as the Purple Line, White Flint or the Great Seneca Science Corridor. Even on close votes, the coalitions are not always clear cut. The ambulance fee was approved 5-4, but the opponents included two Councilmembers who voted for Berliner and endorsed Ben Kramer and two who were on the opposite side.

That said, at least politically these two coalitions lined up against each other in the Council 4 special election and the Council President selection.

But now, those political coalitions have been entirely scrambled. It started when Nancy Navarro and Marc Elrich traded endorsements. The trend continued when Nancy Navarro and George Leventhal endorsed Roger Berliner, who they voted against elevating to Council President. It is affecting challengers as well, with folks like Hans Riemer and Becky Wagner not making plays to support one coalition over the other but seeking broader support from incumbents.

There are probably a few reasons the coalitions have been scrambled. First, many incumbents would likely deny they really existed at all as discussed above. Second, the incumbents look more focused on policy and less on politics if they are seen allying themselves in ways that counter expectations. Third, based on my very broad characterization of them, their perceived policy differences matter a lot less when there is little growth due to the economy and a need to dramatically cut budgets.

Read More...

Summary only...

Fragile

Roundabout. Long Distance Runaround. Mood for a Day. All are on the famous Yes album Fragile. And so should be the County Council, because that’s what they are: Fragile.

Rockville is uneasy at the moment. Gone are the loud explosions over Hillmead, the special elections, growth policy and the Council Presidency. There is a bit of rumbling in the distance, but less thunder and lightning than you might think. On the surface, the council appears united on some key issues in the Great 2010 Budget Crisis. But it is all Fragile.

First, the areas of agreement. The council’s unanimous repudiation of the MCGEO, police and fire fighter union contracts was an important moment in its history. So was its call for furloughs in all agencies, including MCPS. Such actions indicate a united and knowing attempt to take on the unions. The myth of labor domination has been shattered despite the rantings of the Post. This is an action taken not by choice, but by necessity. Even decades-long labor movement lifer Valerie Ervin supported this approach, leaving the unions nowhere to go.

The council is also uniformly hostile to MCPS Superintendent Jerry Weast. His legal memo hinting at a lawsuit had the opposite effect from what he intended: it has galvanized the council against him. For the first time in Weast’s tenure, the council does not fear him. They believe his legal arguments are without merit and are ready to take him on.

Finally, many members do not respect the County Executive. He has styled himself a fiscal conservative yet continues to support numerous spending initiatives and even wants to use public bonds to finance private projects in the face of scrutiny by the bond agencies. His spokesman mocked Council Member George Leventhal for questioning the affordability of contracts that the Executive negotiated. Rightly or wrongly, the Council Members view themselves as the grown-ups who have to clean up the mess the Executive helped to make. Few of them regard Ike Leggett as the leader who will get them to budget stability.

That said, this is not a fully united body. There are four moving parts in closing the FY 2011 deficit: the energy tax, the reserve fund, furloughs and more cuts. As of the moment, the council has not agreed on the appropriate balance between them. This is a tough choice because giving up a little on one area means taking a little more from another. Business is putting up a big fight on the energy tax, but the school unions are sending hundreds of emails to the council protesting MCPS furloughs. The numbers between these options are VERY fluid right now.

There is also a big trust issue here. The three school unions have presented a counter-proposal to furloughs that mostly relies on money from the reserve fund. Most people in the council building disagree with the proposal from a policy perspective, but there are political considerations. Some union officials are spreading word that anyone who votes for mass furloughs will not be eligible for endorsements. That means there is a powerful incentive – especially for the at-large members – to be the only Council Member who supports their position in the event that no one else does. In that instance, labor might support one incumbent and perhaps one or two challengers in the at-large race. All of this is based on speculation, but the very possibility has the Council Members eyeing each other warily. There may be suspense on the vote until the very end.

We believe that the most likely outcome is a unanimous vote on a budget with a slightly lower energy tax hike and slightly larger labor cost cuts than the Executive proposed. That is the outcome most favorable to the incumbents because it reduces opportunities for differentiation between them among the endorsing groups, thus increasing all their chances of return. Labor should beware because if that happens, it is their prospects of success in the next term that may well be Fragile.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Post Owes the County Council an Apology

Do you still read the Washington Post’s coverage of Montgomery County? If you do, you know its editorials routinely portray MoCo politicians as tools of the public employee unions, especially the teachers, despite clear evidence that recent teacher pay increases have been comparable to other jurisdictions. Its reporting focuses on labor issues to the exclusion of most other matters. The Post even insinuated that the unions were involved in last year’s Council President fight when they had no evidence to back up that assertion. Post readers have been conditioned to believe that Montgomery County Council Members are nothing more than creatures of the unions who sell out taxpayers.

But the council has proven them wrong.

Yesterday, every single member of the County Council agreed to freeze county employee pay, take away a bargained pension benefit and spread furloughs across the entire county government – even onto the teachers. That followed a sharply-worded letter from the school unions arguing against it. The letter was signed by none other than MCEA, whom the Post accuses of wielding a “toxic influence” over the council because of the Apple Ballot.

Far from being tools of the unions, the council is currently in heated conflict with them. In many recent conversations your author has had with Council Members, fear of the unions has not been in evidence. Instead, they are all worried about the county’s bond rating and are intensely interested in protecting it. Several of the union leaders are FURIOUS at the council for not considering alternatives to furloughs, including drawing on the rainy day fund. One union leader even threatened to endorse exactly none of the incumbents. Is this really an instance of politicians being in the thrall of unions as the Post alleges?

Last week, the Post sent a delegation of editors and reporters to meet with the full council. They said they wanted to improve their coverage of the county and renew their relationship with Council Members. Several Council Members remarked on their “arrogance,” noting their gold cufflinks and their attitude that the council was lucky to receive such a visit. One Council Member even asked them why they were getting scooped by blogs. (The Post bosses admitted that was a problem for which they had no answer.) No one found the visit to be particularly useful.

If the Post truly wants a new beginning in Montgomery County, there is no need for delegation visits or the flashing of cufflinks. All they have to do is apologize to the council and stop portraying them as cartoon characters jerked around by the unions’ non-existent chains.

Read More...

Summary only...

MCPS/Council Relationship Hits Bottom

Budget pressures and rumors of litigation have caused a considerable rift between the County Council and the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) system. It is possible that the relationship between the two institutions has never been this bad.

All MPW readers know about the county’s nearly $1 billion deficit. That deficit has caused the Executive to recommend double-digit cuts to many county agencies, cuts which have grown due to new revenue writedowns. Among the county’s problems is its inability to meet the state’s Maintenance of Effort (MOE) law, which requires counties to match per-pupil local school spending in succeeding years to be eligible for state aid increases. The state ruled last year that Montgomery’s accounting technique of charging $79.5 million to the school system in debt service violated MOE, but the county’s statehouse delegation was able to get the resulting fine waived. The county cannot meet MOE once again and is applying for another waiver valued at $58-139 million. (The amount varies depending on whether the $79.5 million debt service charge counts towards last year’s local contribution to the schools.)

The county’s budget problems are bad enough. But what has the schools really on edge is that many on the County Council would like to cut the schools’ budget even more. Some argue that the Executive’s budget proposal gives the school system almost everything it wants while other agencies are taking massive cuts. The fact that the Executive exempted the school system and public safety workers from furloughs is another bone of contention as some agree with MCGEO that the pain is unfairly concentrated on a minority of the county workforce. The council’s Management and Fiscal Policy Committee, consisting of Chair Duchy Trachtenberg and Council Members Valerie Ervin and Nancy Navarro, just unanimously voted to spread furloughs across all agencies, including the schools. The problem is that the County Council cannot order the school system to implement furloughs; they can only cut the schools by an equivalent amount of money. A five-day furlough plan the council is considering would cost MCPS $33.7 million.

MCPS is resolutely opposed to furloughs for school employees. The Gazette and the Post reported that the school system is threatening to sue the County Council to prevent cuts over and above the Executive’s proposal. But neither story is completely accurate. The truth reveals even MORE bad blood between MCPS and the council than is implied by the Gazette and Post articles.

The school system consulted its legal counsel for advice on how to fight additional cuts. The schools’ attorney reviewed state law and found Education Title 5, § 5-102(c), which says the following about local school budgets that are forwarded to County Executives and then sent to County Councils:

(c) Reduction by county executive.-

(1) This subsection applies only to a county that has a county governing body that consists of a county executive and county council.

(2) The county executive shall indicate in writing which major categories of the annual budget of the county board have been denied in whole or reduced in part and the reason for the denial or reduction.

(3) The county council may restore any denial or reduction made by the county executive in the annual budget submitted by the county board.

The school system’s lawyer believes this language prohibits the council from cutting the school budget below the level recommended by the Executive. The council’s attorney disagrees. The matter awaits the courts if a suit is filed.

MCPS wrote an in-house draft based on this legal theory, which it shared with the County Attorney. The County Attorney then shared it with the council, which leaked it to the Gazette and the Post despite discussion of the issue in a closed session. In contrast to the published articles, the school system never formally threatened litigation. Therefore, a lawsuit is not quite on the table – YET.

Both sides are now pointing sharp-clawed fingers at the other. The council believes MCPS is playing politics by evaluating legal justifications for a lawsuit. MCPS believes the council is playing politics by leaking a secret in-house legal draft. The council will not accept any limits on its authority to cut the budget. MCPS will not support any MOE waiver which exceeds the County Executive’s proposed cut. Neither side is prepared to budge.

Anyone ever get behind the wheel and play a game of chicken blindfolded?

Read More...

Summary only...

Look Them in the Eye

And now we see their true colors. After frenzied lobbying by Director of Economic Development Steve Silverman, a majority of the County Council has caved in and supports a $4 million subsidy to finance a Costco at Westfield Wheaton. The Gazette has not named them, but we will: Nancy Floreen, George Leventhal, Mike Knapp, Duchy Trachtenberg and Roger Berliner. Here is what they have done.

First, let’s understand exactly what this is. The money is going to Westfield Wheaton – a profitable mall that received $6 million in county money just five years ago – to subsidize construction of a building that will house Costco and other retailers. Of the 475 jobs that will be subsidized, at least 200 will be employed by Dick’s Sporting Goods and other rock-bottom-paying companies. Costco employees will start at $11 per hour. These are the very jobs that other counties get for free, and that Best Buy created just outside Westfield Wheaton for free. Environmental standards governing the gas station that Costco will construct in the Sligo Creek watershed will be summarily discarded so that the project can be rushed through. All of this is motivated by the fact that county officials are fearful of losing Northrop Grumman to Virginia and want to have an election-year “victory” to show for themselves. We can’t attract the best of the best anymore but we can still buy ourselves a Costco!

The cost of this cannot be measured merely by the $4 million the county will give away to Westfield. You see, the Lords of Annapolis are watching us. The county has a story to tell them to save our tattered fiscal hide: we are allegedly poor. We are running half-billion dollar deficits forever, we will say. We will ask for waivers on the state’s Maintenance of Effort education spending requirement every single year because we are too poor to pay for our schools. But when we look Maryland Superintendent of Schools Nancy Grasmick in the eye to beg for relief, she will say, “You’re not poor. You can afford a $4 million subsidy for Westfield.”

We are also allegedly too poor to afford the costs of teacher pensions. Under the proposal drafted by our own Senate Delegation Chairman, our deficits will go up by tens of millions of dollars every year. But when we look the Lords of Annapolis in the eye to beg for relief, they will say, “You’re not poor. You can afford a $4 million subsidy for Westfield.”

Next year, when the General Assembly returns to pass a tax package that will inevitably hit the county hard, we will say that we cannot bear it. But when we look the Lords of Annapolis in the eye to beg for relief – again – they will say, “You’re not poor. You can afford a $4 million subsidy for Westfield.”

Here is a secret for our readers. The reason why the administration and many on the County Council cannot comprehend these facts is that the county officials and the statehouse delegation rarely talk to each other. A state Delegate is hardly more likely to get a phone call from a county elected official – even one who shares a common district – than he or she would from Barack Obama. That goes both ways. The last time the council and the delegation held a joint meeting, it was such a train wreck that many delegation members vowed to never participate in any such thing again. Rockville and Annapolis learn about each other the same way you do – by reading the Post, the Gazette and blogs. The county government has no idea how budget blowups like the $65,000 bathroom, the police helicopters, taxpayer-financed junkets for Council Members, multi-thousand dollar staff “retreats” at county parks and gold-plated body guards look in Annapolis. What should we expect Mike Miller to do when we whine about our supposed poverty while showering million-dollar giveaways on low-wage multinationals? How can we expect our state legislators to defend such actions?

But it gets even worse. Every Council Member who supports squandering $4 million on this subsidy will be shortly voting in favor of a devastating budget that will wreak havoc across the county. Council Members, when representatives of the poor and helpless come to ask that you refrain from gutting their services, look them in the eye and say, “No, the money is better spent on Westfield.” When the bus drivers and librarians come to ask that you spare them from furloughs and layoffs, look them in the eye and say, “No, the money is better spent on Westfield.” When parents come to ask that you not increase class size, look them in the eye and say, “No, the money is better spent on Westfield.”

And after the poor and the bus drivers and the librarians and the parents go away empty-handed while Westfield carries our money back to its headquarters in Australia, look your people in the eye and tell them why on Earth you deserve to be their Council Member.

Read More...

Summary only...

County Council to Hold Town Hall Meeting in Kensington

Following is the press release from the County Council.

Montgomery County Council to Host Kensington / Garrett Park Area Town Hall Meeting on Wednesday, March 24

Residents Invited to Express Their Views on Issues, Ask Questions of Councilmembers at HOC Office Building

ROCKVILLE, Md., February 26, 2010—The Montgomery County Council will continue its efforts to find out what issues most concern residents when it hosts a Town Hall Meeting for the Kensington / Garrett Park area on Wednesday, March 24. The meeting at the Housing Opportunities Commission Office Building will start at 8 p.m. A pre-meeting reception will begin at 7:30 p.m.

This will be the second Town Hall Meeting hosted by the Council in 2010. The Council is composed of President Nancy Floreen, Vice President Valerie Ervin and Councilmembers Phil Andrews, Roger Berliner, Marc Elrich, Mike Knapp, George Leventhal, Nancy Navarro and Duchy Trachtenberg. On Feb. 3, at the Council’s first-ever Town Hall Meeting for students, more than 400 people attended in Rockville.

The Housing Opportunities Commission Office Building is located at 10400 Detrick Avenue in Kensington.

The meeting will allow residents to voice their opinions on specific issues and will allow them to ask questions of the Councilmembers in an organized, but informal, setting.

Topics expected to be of interest include the proposed White Flint Sector Plan, schools, public safety, traffic, growth, the County budget and taxes.

“As the County approaches the Fiscal Year 2011 budget, we are facing an unprecedented $761 million shortfall due to decreasing revenues. We must all work together to produce a balanced budget, but it is clear that we will be making very difficult decisions that will impact every resident of this County,” said Council President Floreen. “The timing of this meeting allows us to hear from residents about their priorities and their concerns. It also gives us the opportunity to explain some of the issues that are before us.”

Council President Floreen said Town Hall Meetings are one of the avenues the Council has pursued to keep residents better informed.

“This Council has made a priority of having better direct communication with residents, and Town Hall Meetings have proven to be an excellent way to do just that,” she said. “For the citizens, these meetings provide a forum where they can see their elected officials in a different format than a televised meeting or through a news release.”

The meeting will be taped for later broadcast on County Cable Montgomery (CCM—cable Channel 6 on Comcast and RCN, Channel 30 on Verizon). Susan Kenedy, a producer for the county station, will moderate the meeting.

For more information about the Town Hall Meeting or about the broadcast times, call 240-777-7931.

# # #

Read More...

Summary only...

Campaign Finance Shorts, Part One

Starting today, Adam and Marc will briefly review the fundraising totals in Montgomery County and elsewhere. We’ll dig in more on selected races in the future.

County Offices


Adam: Roger Berliner looks ready to take on Ilaya Hopkins or anyone else trying to throw him out. Mike Knapp looks like a candidate who has not made up his mind to run for re-election. Potential Knapp challenger Sharon Dooley may not be able to raise enough to knock him off if he does. Gaithersburg/Germantown Chamber of Commerce President Marilyn Balcombe loaned herself $2,425, began graphic design and bought a website domain name for a run in case Knapp leaves his seat. Phil Andrews’ fundraising is solid considering that he rejects contributions from both developers and PACs. Navarro fortified her account with a $30,000 loan because she will be running her third race in three years. (When is the last time that happened in Montgomery County?) Valerie Ervin had a larger gross take than any other incumbent except Duchy Trachtenberg and spent most of it. Even so, she is a popular incumbent whose influence transcends her district and she is a lock to return.

Marc: Mike Knapp’s small sum will certainly not put to rest rumors that he is considering retiring. By comparison, he raised $86,000 during the same period four years ago. None of the district candidates have announced challengers yet and some of these fundraising totals might scare away potential foes.

Adam: On the at-large side, Trachtenberg’s ability to snap her fingers and conjure up hundreds of thousands of dollars of out-of-state money is the best thing she has going for her. She could very well spend half a million dollars this year. George Leventhal and Nancy Floreen are proven fundraisers and vote-getters. Floreen is the only current member of the council who has won twice without the Apple Ballot and she could very well get it this time around. Leventhal finished first in the 2006 Democratic primary and has support from a wide coalition including business, labor and many others. Both Leventhal and Floreen appear headed for re-election. Neither Becky Wagner nor Jane de Winter has shown much ability to raise money yet for what is always a very expensive race. Wagner’s friends in the business community should help her do better. Marc Elrich never raises a lot of money and compensates for it with an extensive grass-roots volunteer base. Elrich’s supporters are true believers and will work hard for him on the doors and the street corners. He does need to be wary of getting swamped by strong fundraising performances by the other incumbents and challenger Hans Riemer, who raised over $85,000 of non-Maryland money for his 2006 District 5 open seat contest. And that was before Riemer went to work on Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

Marc: Duchy Trachtenberg’s impressive fundraising changes the dimensions of the at-large race considerably. So does Councilwoman Navarro’s endorsement of Marc Elrich, as it indicates the council race will not be dominated by two slates roughly along the lines of the Council President vote.

There is a lot of buzz on Becky Wagner because of her background and her broad network throughout the County. But her fundraising so far does a surprisingly poor job of reflecting that. Among her contributions was $3,000 from MCGEO, which is a good start to what many expect to be strong union support for her.

Marc Elrich, who is known for running his campaigns on a shoestring budget, raised more than both of the at-large challengers who reported. By comparison, he had $11,000 at this time in the last cycle.

Adam: County Executive Ike Leggett has more than enough money to deal with any challenger other than former County Executive Doug Duncan or Ervin, neither of whom has indicated any plan to run against him. The lack of any declared opponent to Leggett is an interesting and overlooked part of the 2010 election.

Marc: Although I hate to disagree with Adam, among the many Duncan rumors I have heard is that might challenge Leggett. He still has a sizeable sum in the bank and his distaste with the current leadership in Rockville and Annapolis is no secret. But any challenge to Leggett is unlikely and Leggett probably won’t exhaust his war chest. That will lead to endless speculation after the election about whether Leggett will decide to run for a third term or another office.

District 14


Adam: Senator Rona Kramer’s total does not mean very much since she can access the vast Kramer family fortune if she faces real trouble. Delegates Anne Kaiser and Karen Montgomery are solid incumbents. Delegate Herman Taylor may be running for Congress against Donna Edwards, but if he changes his mind to run again for his current Delegate seat, he will have to deal with challenger Craig Zucker. Zucker ran a strong campaign in 2002 and has waited patiently for his next opportunity. He is doing so well financially that he could conceivably cause problems for the incumbents if Taylor came back.

Marc: Delegate Herman Taylor has indicated he is running for Congress. No federal report is up yet. All the funds Taylor raised in his state account in 2009 he turned around and spent to promote himself.

Craig Zucker has an impressive total, with more cash on hand than one of the incumbents and a little less than the other. But the best news for Zucker is that there do not appear to be any other challengers in the district actively raising money. He has also lined up strong union support, with $20,000 of his donations coming from union PACs.

Eric Luedtke, who cut short his campaign for the State Senate, raised around $5,000 in only six weeks of fundraising. While not a candidate in 2010, Luedtke will be back in the future. (Full disclosure, I donated to Luedtke).

More tomorrow!

Read More...

Summary only...

County Council to Hold Town Hall Meeting with Students

Following is the press release from the County Council.

Montgomery County Council to Host Its First Town Hall Meeting for Students on Wednesday, Feb. 3, in Rockville

High School and Middle School Students From Across the County Will Be Able to Express Views on Issues, Ask Questions of Councilmembers in First Meeting of Its Kind

ROCKVILLE, Md., January 11, 2010—The Montgomery County Council, which for the past several years has held Town Hall Meetings throughout the County in its efforts to find out what issues most concern residents, will learn what is on the mind of younger residents when it hosts its first-ever Town Hall Meeting for Students at the Council Office Building in Rockville. The meeting, in the Council’s Third Floor Hearing Room, will start at 7 p.m. A pre-meeting reception will begin at 6:30 p.m. in the building’s second-floor cafeteria.

The Council Office Building is located at 100 Maryland Ave. in downtown Rockville. It is about a three-block walk from the Rockville Metrorail station, which also is a main stopping point for many RideOn bus lines. For students traveling to the meeting by car, free parking will be available by entering the Council parking garage from the Fleet Street entrance.

This will be the first Town Hall Meeting hosted by the Council in 2010. The Council is composed of President Nancy Floreen, Vice President Valerie Ervin and Councilmembers Phil Andrews, Roger Berliner, Marc Elrich, Mike Knapp, George Leventhal, Nancy Navarro and Duchy Trachtenberg.

The meeting is open to high school and middle school students from around the County. The meeting will allow the participants to let Councilmembers know how they feel about specific issues and also will provide the opportunity to ask questions of the Councilmembers in an organized, but informal, setting.

“When it comes to decisions affecting young people—whether in regard to schools, libraries, recreation, parks or the community in general—the practice too often is to have one set of adults talk to another set adults,” said Council President Nancy Floreen. “This Council will have many important decisions to make in the coming months—and many of these decisions could have significant impact on people 18 and under. We think the best way to find out what this generation of Montgomery County residents need and want is to hear directly from them.”

The meeting will be broadcast live on County Cable Montgomery (CCM—cable Channel 6 on Comcast and RCN, Channel 30 on Verizon) and rebroadcast at various times in the following weeks. Susan Kenedy, a producer for the county station, will moderate the meeting.

Students who wish to attend the meeting are asked to RSVP by calling 240-777-7931.

# # #

Read More...

Summary only...

What to Watch for in 2010, Part One

By Marc Korman.

A year ago I listed five things to watch in 2009. Here is a fresh list for 2010. This list is not intended to be the top five political stories of 2010, just five items of interest for MPW readers.

1. Who Runs and Who Wins in the Primaries to Watch?

Thanks to Democratic dominance, the real election stories in 2010 will be Democratic primaries (unless Bob Ehrlich runs). Some primary challenges have already begun such as Prince George’s County State’s Attorney Glenn Ivey versus Congresswoman Donna Edwards, Former Delegate Cheryl Kagan versus State Senator Jennie Forehand, and Dana Beyer versus the District 18 Delegation. But many more are being considered or rumored including Delegate Saqib Ali versus State Senator Nancy King, Delegate Roger Manno versus State Senator Mike Lenett, and perhaps most interesting, some type of Former Prince George’s County Executive Wayne Curry/Former Montgomery County Executive Doug Duncan combination versus Martin O’Malley and Anthony Brown.

You always have to favor the incumbents, but every challenger I mentioned here and the others who have not yet appeared will work hard to upset conventional wisdom and get elected. Who wins, who loses, and what it all means will be the big story come September.

2. How’s the Council Split?

Yes, I know that Members of the Council like to point out that 90% of the votes are unanimous and that any divide over growth was rendered moot by the recession. Well I’m not buying it. If you want to know why, just ask Roger Berliner. His quest for the Council Presidency came long after the recession began, and technically ended, and was a far cry from a unanimous vote.

A divide exists and council challengers running in 2010 will be picking sides either publicly, by courting endorsements of sitting Council Members and their backers, or privately, by providing assurances to interested parties that they are with one side of another. I will leave it to Adam to call out which candidate stands with which faction, but after the primary election we will know which faction, if any, will be running the show for the next four years.

3. What is the Unemployment Rate?

The unemployment rate is a deceptive statistic, but an emotionally charged one. Hovering around 10% right now, the unemployment rate has not been this high since I was in diapers (summer of 1983 for those who really want to know). The number, fairly or not, is probably the biggest driver of President Obama and the Democratic Party’s political standing at the mid-term elections failing a national emergency on par with 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina. If the unemployment rate is heading south, approval ratings will be heading north and vice versa.

The unemployment rate usually publicized, sometimes called “headline unemployment,” is deceptive in two ways. First, it fails to really define the problem because it does not account for those no longer searching for jobs and the underemployed. Second, it is tough politically because it is essentially impossible to measure what the unemployment rate would have been if certain actions were not taken including the TARP program or the stimulus package.

Next time, we will look at two more things to watch for in 2010.

Read More...

Summary only...

Season's Greetings from the Herd

Ever wonder what kind of greeting cards the County Council gets during the holidays? Wonder no more! Here's one from a concerned constituent asking them to pass a 32-page zoning text amendment proposed by the County Executive that would "prevent stockpiling of cars on properties in residential neighborhoods." Just one question: was the card mailed to London and Brazil?

Read More...

Summary only...

What I Watched for in 2009, Part One

By Marc Korman.

At the start of 2009, I took a look at “What to Watch for in 2009.” I asked five questions and speculated as to how they might be answered during the year. In two parts, I will take a look at what has actually occurred.

1. Who is Raising Money?

I asked this question in terms of who might retire and who might challenge an incumbent.

So far, there have been no official retirement announcements. Speculation continues to swirl around Delegate Hank Heller in District 19 and Councilman Mike Knapp in District 2. There may be some announcements following the legislative session, but I probably jumped the gun by thinking more people would make their intentions clear by now.

One potential retiree I did mention was Councilman Don Praisner, who passed away earlier this year. His successor, Nancy Navarro, is a definite candidate for reelection.

As for challengers, of those I mentioned only Dana Beyer is making definitive moves to run in District 18. But there are many other challengers out raising money, primarily for the at-large Council race, District 17 senate race and in District 19. A long list of candidates has emerged based on fundraising efforts including: Cheryl Kagan, Becky Wagner, Jane DeWinter, Sam Arora, Tom DeGonia, and Hoan Dang. The January campaign finance reports will reveal or confirm many more names.

I also suggested that Councilwoman Valerie Ervin might run for an at-large seat, which would have allowed 2006 candidate Hans Riemer to run for her vacant seat. Councilwoman Ervin appears to be sitting tight, but Riemer may still jump into the at-large race.

2. What Are the Republicans Doing?

The answer is nothing. Robin Ficker ran in the County Council Special Election and was blown out. Despite Ficker’s high profile, his 35.26% of the vote was just slightly better than the Republican’s share the previous year of 33.44%. Ficker is likely to run again, but there is little evidence that his message is effective in Montgomery County beyond the 2008 Charter Amendment he championed to passage (though I still maintain that was a fluke victory).

Outside of Ficker, there is little evidence of Republican candidates around Montgomery County. They will likely field challengers in many seats, but they will primarily be non-entities in these races.

The one exception is the potential candidacy of former Governor Bob Ehrlich. He continues to flirt with the possibility of a comeback.

3. Is the County Council Doing Anything?

Yes and no. The Council has had a full plate in 2009 of budget cuts, the growth policy, and some transportation issues I will discuss in Part Two. They have also spent a lot of time discussing White Flint and Gaithersburg West/Science City, with final action deferred until next year.

But one of the dominant issues in the growth policy, how to reform Policy Area Mobility Review, was deferred until the County Executive sends his recommendations. Another important issue, school capacity, was dealt with by rejecting the Planning Board’s recommendation to increase from 105% of capacity to 110% the threshold for a facilities payment by developers. But the Council did not address the need for better capacity projections. Overall, the growth policy did not make the transformative changes the Planning Board had promoted.

The Council also spent a lot of time on its internal politics, bucking tradition and not electing the 2009 Council Vice President as the 2010 Council President. The vote demonstrates that the 5-4 split on the council, primarily premised on growth issues, is still alive and well despite the economy slowing the rate of growth.

Questions 4 and 5 will be considered in Part Two.

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...

Stuffing the Ballot Box

You know it had to happen, people: someone has tried – successfully – to stuff MPW’s ballot box. And we caught him in the act!

The “box,” of course, is MPW’s poll on Tuesday’s Council President selection. Late last night, Roger Berliner was leading Nancy Floreen by 8.5 points. And then this went up on Twitter:


What a great son he is! Shortly after this tweet went out, Council Member Floreen closed the gap.

Now come on, dear readers. The office of Council President is primarily symbolic. The President’s main duties are talking to the press and showing up at events. Phil Andrews expressed relief on his last day as President because he could resume actually going home on some days after work. No legislation or votes change because of who is President. And the horrible budget deficit doesn’t care who it is that gets to tell the media how horrible it is!

If MPW readers want to flood into our utterly meaningless but delightfully petty poll, be our guests. We’ll never say no to the extra site visits! Our only problem is the disappointing performance of the “rat’s behind” option, favored by both your author and his wife. Doesn’t everybody know that rats tend to do well in politics?

Read More...

Summary only...

Three Ideas to Reform Council President Selection

By Marc Korman.

Montgomery County’s chattering class has been abuzz over the County Council’s recent election of Nancy Floreen over Roger Berliner as the new Council President, breaking the tradition of a Council Vice President ascending to President. If the chattering class is up in arms enough to push for action, here are three ideas to reform the process for selecting the Council President.

But before we jump into the three alternatives I have a short preface. Adam was undoubtedly right when he wrote, “the voters care about what politicians are doing for them, not about what the politicians are doing for – or to – themselves.” But leadership is important and how smoothly the Council runs will have a lot to do with what the Council can do for County residents. If the Council is spending its time fighting over leadership roles and breaking into factions, they cannot get on with the business of Montgomery County.

That said, the top concern I heard from those who opposed the break in the tradition was that it would generate too much political wrangling among the councilmembers. First, these folks are politicians so I think we can expect political activism regardless of how the Council Presidency is handled. Second, if the Vice President has historically been viewed as a certain path to the presidency, then why has there not been endless political wrangling for that position each year?

But perhaps after forty years it is time to consider some possible changes, an issue I raised in a previous post. Ten of Maryland’s twenty-four counties (including Baltimore) have a council form of government. Eight of them follow the practice in Montgomery County of having the council elect their officers for one year terms, though Baltimore County has only a chair and no vice chair.

Here are three alternative approaches to consider:

1. Put Into Law The Automatic Ascension of the Council Vice President

If the tradition of Council Vice President ascending to Council President is so important, let’s go ahead and put it into the County Charter. As it stands, Article 1, Section 108 of the Charter provides for Officers of the Council and does not even mention the Council Vice President.

If a Charter Amendment is a step too far then the Council can pass a bill. Sec. 2-67 of the County Code, dealing with the election of the Council President and Vice President, can be amended to require the Vice-President become President.

Of course, either reform would have to specify what would happen if a Vice President is no longer serving due to death, incapacitation, or election.

2. Change the Terms of the Officers to Four Years

Every year the Montgomery County Council picks a new President and Vice President. Even if the race for President is usually anti-climactic, there can still be intrigue over who the new Vice President will be. The revolving door of leadership could also mean a lack of stability and mixed up priorities. For example, a Council President, knowing their term is short, may rush a pet issue at the expense of something else.

Montgomery County could consider following Wicomico County’s lead and having the Council pick officers who will serve the full four year term, rather than just one year of the term. Such an arrangement would frontload any politicking to right after the election and provide more stable leadership for the Council as a whole.

3. Make the Council President a Countywide Elected Position

When discussing the recent action over the Council Presidency with the two or three friends I have left who are not absorbed in local politics, I have seen their eyes roll and heard the words “inside baseball.” One way to open the issue of Council leadership up to the people would be to convert one of the four at-large County Council seats to an elected Council President office.

Baltimore City and Harford County already follow this model of making their council leadership a democratic choice of the voters. Both jurisdictions allow their councils to choose their vice president themselves.

Making the Council President an elected office would remove leadership politicking from the Council, provide stability, and make the process more open and democratic.

There are undoubtedly other ideas for reform as well. If there are serious concerns about the Council’s recent action, people should speak up. We can discuss government reform while still working on the economy, transportation, and education.

Read More...

Summary only...