Montgomery County Council

Council Attorney: Council Did Not Violate Open Meetings Act

By Adam Pagnucco.

On Tuesday, I wrote a post asking whether the county council had violated the state’s Open Meetings Act by posting two charter amendments on its agenda the morning of their vote. County council attorney Bob Drummer wrote me the email below explaining why the council did not violate the law.

*****

Adam,

I’m reaching out to you about your Aug. 4 post in Seventh State asking if the Montgomery County Council is in compliance with the Maryland Open Meetings Act because of two potential ballot proposal that were added to the Council agenda and posted on the Council’s web page on the morning of Aug. 4.

Your post misses the point of the Open Meetings Act. The Act requires the Council to provide reasonable notice before conducting an open meeting. The Act goes on to require the Council to post an agenda for the meeting for public viewing if it has been determined at the same time as the notice of the meeting. If an agenda is not determined at the time of the notice, it should be posted at least 24 hours in advance (Md. Code Ann., General Provisions Article, Sec. 3-302.1(a)). Sec. 3-302.1(b) provides an exception for an emergency meeting. It appears that you only read these sections and made some incorrect assumptions from this selective reading.

Let me explain. Notice of the August 4 meeting was posted more than 24 hours before the meeting. The notice included an agenda. The agenda included a discussion and action on 2 possible Charter Amendments concerning the composition of the Council – one by petition and one by Councilmember Glass. In your blog, you complained about the late addition of 2 alternative Charter Amendments proposed by Councilmembers Riemer and Navarro concerning the composition of the Council. First, the public had ample advance notice that the Council was going to discuss possible Charter Amendments concerning the composition of the Council. More importantly, the final provision of the Section you mistakenly relied on, Sec. 3-302.1(e) states:

(e) Alteration of agenda. — Nothing in this section may be construed to prevent a public body from altering the agenda of a meeting after the agenda has been made available to the public.

This section expressly authorizes a public body to alter the agenda of a meeting after the agenda has been posted. The two proposals that you question were just that – alterations of the agenda after it was posted. If your reading of the statute was correct, a public body would never be able to change the agenda at the last minute, and a Councilmember would never be permitted to move to amend a resolution or bill before it at the meeting if notice of the proposed amendment was not provided to the public at least 24 hours in advance. Such a reading would make the Open Meetings Act unworkable. The main purpose of the Open Meetings Act is to ensure that almost all (except for permitted closed meetings) legislative decisions by a public body are made in public. The purpose of the notice and agenda requirement is to ensure that the public has the opportunity to watch (or at least hear) the meeting. The notice and agenda requirement is not designed to hamstring a public body into strictly following a posted agenda without any flexibility to modify it.

The two proposals you question in your post are referenced in the Council’s media advisory that was distributed and posted to the Council’s web page on the evening of Aug. 3. The advisory generally describes the proposals and notes that the Council staff reports will be available on Aug. 4. You can view the advisory here: https://www2.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgportalapps/Press_Detail.aspx?Item_ID=25673&Dept=1. Moreover, as you reported in your subsequent Aug. 4 post in the Seventh State, the Council did not approve either of the ballot proposals.

I also want to take this opportunity to remind you and your readers that all Council and committee meetings are televised on County Cable Montgomery and are streamed on Facebook and YouTube. In addition, individuals without internet or cable access can listen to Council and committee meetings on the call in line.

As always, we appreciate you following Council deliberations and getting the word out about important public policy issues that impact Montgomery County residents.

Robert H. Drummer
Senior Legislative Attorney
Montgomery County Council

Share
Adam Pagnucco, Fire Fighters, MCGEO, Montgomery County Council, police

Revealed! Funders of Nine Districts

By Adam Pagnucco.

Nine District for MoCo, the ballot question entity responsible for gathering signatures for a 9 district charter amendment, has filed a new campaign finance report listing its contributions and expenditures through August 2. The organization’s prior report, released in January, contained data for 7/24/19 through 1/8/20.

The information here is bound to shake MoCo’s political establishment to its core.

First, the overall data on contributions and expenditures.

Contributions
7/24/19-1/8/20: $1,244
1/9/20-8/2/20: $64,790
Total: $66,034

Expenditures
7/24/19-1/8/20: $438
1/9/20-8/2/20: $59,140
Total: $59,578

Here are the largest contributors to the group.

Charles Nulsen, Washington Property Company: $50,000
UFCW Local 1994 MCGEO: $10,000 (in-kind)
Bob Buchanan, Buchanan Partners: $5,000
Fraternal Order of Police: $5,000 (in-kind)
Montgomery County Career Fire Fighters Association PAC: $5,000 (in-kind)
Gingery Development Group: $5,000
Arlene Hillerson (listed as being in real estate): $2,000

The Town of Laytonsville also contributed $100.

Charlie Nulsen is the founder of Empower Montgomery. Bob Buchanan is the former chair of the county’s economic development corporation. Both are long-time regional developers.

The unions’ in-kind contributions came in the form of online advertising.

The leading recipient of money from the group is Rowland Strategies of Baltimore, which was paid $50,000 on June 9. The firm is headed by Jonathon Rowland, a national level strategist who ran Hoan Dang’s campaign for county council in 2018.

Nine Districts for MoCo is now revealed as an unholy alliance of developers and unions – two groups that often don’t see eye to eye. The unions are aggrieved at the council’s rejection of their collective bargaining agreements (among MANY other things). The developers have long complained about – in their view – the difficulty of doing business in MoCo. They are also no doubt upset about the recent imposition of temporary rent stabilization.

The real estate industry and labor both have substantial influence over county politics but don’t get everything they want – especially in these troubled times. If they have indeed formed an unholy alliance on anything, much less a ballot measure that would eviscerate the county council, this is a new day for MoCo.

Share
Montgomery County Council, Paul Bessel

The MoCo Council Structure Should Not Be Changed

By Paul Bessel.

With due respect to the members of the MoCo Council, I believe they made a mistake when they voted to put on the ballot the issue of adding 2 District Council Members. We do not need more Council Members and the voters benefit greatly from the current structure. The item on the ballot by petition, to eliminate At Large Members and have 9 District Members, is even worse for our citizens.

The argument that we want to give voters choices is wrong. The vast majority of voters don’t care about the Council structure. They care what the Council does, not its structure.

The issue of Council structure has been studied in detail by 5 separate Charter Review Commissions and ALL recommended that there should continue to be 4 At Large and 5 District Members. That allows each county voter to vote for a majority of the Council Members and to turn to 5 different representatives when they wish.

Adding members to the Council will cost a lot of money: Council Member salaries, staff salaries, reconstruction of the Council building. What would be gained? Nothing. The 9 Council Members do all the work needed.

Eliminating At Large Members would be even worse. If a citizen lived in a district where her or his District Member didn’t care much about constituent service (it happens!) they would have no one to turn to, while now they have 4 others who represent them. Plus, having At Large Members helps to provide a possibly different view on all issues.

There is no need to tinker with the Council structure. There is no need to put any questions about this on the ballot. The current structure works well. Leave it alone.

Paul Bessel was Chair of the Charter Review Commission from 2015 thru 2018.

Share
Adam Pagnucco, Montgomery County Council

Two Districts vs Nine Districts

By Adam Pagnucco.

Moments ago, the county council voted on whether to place three charter amendments on the ballot that would change the council’s structure.

An amendment authored by Council Member Evan Glass that would add two districts to the council’s current five districts and four at-large seats PASSED on an 8-1 vote. Council Member Andrew Friedson voted against it.

An amendment authored by Council Member Hans Riemer to add an elected council president was WITHDRAWN by its sponsor. Riemer recognized he did not have the votes.

An amendment authored by Council Member Nancy Navarro to create four residency districts for the four at-large members FAILED on a 4-5 vote. Those in favor included Navarro and Council Members Andrew Friedson, Sidney Katz and Craig Rice. Those against included Council Members Gabe Albornoz, Evan Glass, Tom Hucker, Will Jawando and Hans Riemer. The split here was district vs at-large members as all the at-large members voted no and every district member except Hucker voted yes.

As for the open meetings issue I raised this morning, council attorney Bob Drummer told the council that it was legal for them to add late items to a meeting agenda. In any event, the issue is moot because both late charter amendments did not pass.

And so if the nine district petition qualifies for the ballot, voters will decide whether to shift to an-all district system, add two district seats to the current system or vote against both and stay with the current system of five district seats and four at-large seats. Because at least one of these council structure questions will appear on the ballot along with two tax limit amendments already placed there, this November will see a hugely important election in MoCo.

Share
Uncategorized

Altered Map: Cases Per 100k by County

From the New York Times. The map has changed. Doesn’t look like opening up Ocean City was such a great idea. Montgomery and Frederick have moved down the list. Many rural and outer suburban places no longer much different from inner suburbs.

  • Baltimore City, 29.
  • Worcester, 24.
  • Baltimore County, 22.
  • Talbot, 22.
  • Prince George’s, 19.
  • Dorchester, 15.
  • Anne Arundel, 14.
  • Calvert, 13.
  • Charles, 13.
  • Howard, 13.
  • Caroline, 12.
  • Harford, 12.
  • St. Mary’s, 11.
  • Montgomery, 10.
  • Washington, 10.
  • Carroll, 9.5.
  • Kent, 9.4.
  • Queen Anne’s, 8.8.
  • Wicomico, 7.6.
  • Cecil, 6.9.
  • Frederick, 6.5.
  • Somerset, 5.0.
  • Garrett, 4.1.
  • Allegany, 4.0.

Share
Adam Pagnucco, Montgomery County Council

Is the Council Violating the Open Meetings Act?

By Adam Pagnucco.

This morning, MoCo residents woke up to find two brand new items on the council’s agenda that were not present late last night. Both of them are proposed charter amendments, which are among the most significant issues considered by any council. The suddenness with which they appeared, and the utter lack of opportunity for input by residents (they are being considered for action at this very writing!) raises questions about whether the council is in compliance with the state’s Open Meetings Act.

The proposed amendments both concern the council’s structure and are being considered along with the 9 districts petition and an amendment that appeared yesterday adding two seats. One amendment proposed by Council Member Hans Riemer specifies that one of the four at-large members would be elected as council president and would be regarded as a separate office for the purpose of term limits. In other words, if an incumbent council member runs for council president and wins, he or she would be entitled to three more consecutive terms. (Let’s remember that Riemer himself is term limited.) The other amendment, proposed by Council Member Nancy Navarro, would create “at-large districts” for at-large members. Each at-large member would have to reside in one of four “at-large districts” and all voters in the county would be able to vote to for all four of them. The system is not unlike school board districts, in which residency requirements are in effect but all voters vote for all school board members.

Regardless of the merits of these proposals, the timing of their sudden appearance on the agenda might conflict with notice requirements in the state’s Open Meetings Act.

In the 2016 regular session of the General Assembly, the Open Meetings Act was modified with the passage of HB217. The text of the bill provided that public bodies should publish agendas for open meetings in a timely fashion. The bill stated:

3–302.1.(A)(2) If an agenda has been determined at the time the public body gives notice of the meeting under § 3–302 of this subtitle, the public body shall make available the agenda at the same time the public body gives notice of the meeting.

3–302.1.(A)(3) If an agenda has not been determined at the time the public body gives notice of the meeting, the public body shall make available the agenda as soon as practicable after the agenda has been determined but no later than 24 hours before the meeting.

The bill allowed an exception to the above provision. It went on to state:

3–302.1.(B) If a public body is unable to comply with the provisions of subsection (A) of this section because the meeting was scheduled in response to an emergency, a natural disaster, or any other unanticipated situation, the public body shall make available on request an agenda of the meeting within a reasonable time after the meeting occurs.

None of these provisions apply to today’s meeting. There is no emergency (aside from perhaps a political one!), there is no natural disaster and the discussion of council structure was far from unanticipated. The question here is whether HB217 applies to major changes to an agenda or the mere provision of an agenda only.

Some last-minute changes to an agenda are unobjectionable. For example, if the council wanted to make a morning addition to its consent calendar recognizing National Guitar Day, no one would have a problem with it. (Hint, hint: it’s February 11.) But these charter amendments are issues of enormous consequence. The nine district amendment has been discussed in public for months. Council Member Evan Glass has talked about his idea of adding district seats for almost a year. Both appeared on the council’s agenda yesterday and are ripe for consideration in an open meeting.

Even if the Navarro and Riemer proposals are eventually found to not violate state law in litigation – and make no mistake, litigation is a definite possibility if they are passed! – they certainly violate the spirit of the law. Both are major last-minute additions to the agenda with no public vetting of any kind unlike Glass’s idea, which he discussed with the charter review commission. Opponents are sure to pounce and offer them as prime exhibits of why scheming politicians are not to be trusted and therefore deserve political decapitation. How does this help the council’s case against nine districts?

The council should have united behind a common alternative as they did with their counter to Ficker’s charter amendment on taxes. Instead, they are showing a decided lack of respect for public input by placing a hugely important item on the agenda just an hour before a vote. Folks who want to blow up the county’s governance should rejoice. Those who don’t should shake their heads at the machinations of Rockville.

Update: After this post was published, a council staff attorney outlined his reasoning for why the council did not violate the open meetings act.

Share
Adam Pagnucco, Montgomery County Council

Council Drops Poison Pill on Nine Districts

By Adam Pagnucco.

In addition to placing at least one competing proposal on the ballot, the county council is about to adopt a tactic to defeat the proposed charter amendment for 9 districts that is sure to infuriate its supporters. The worst thing (or best thing, depending on your point of view) is that this tactic has a proven record of success.

Specifically, it relates to the exact language on 9 districts that will be placed on the ballot.

Maryland Election Law § 7-103 lays out the role of local governments in preparing ballot language. This morning, the county council will be considering this language for the ballot on the 9 districts amendment (providing that it has 10,000 valid signatures and actually qualifies).

Question D

Charter amendment by petition

County Council – Alter Council Composition to 9 Districts

Amend Sections 102 and 103 of the County Charter to:
— divide the County into 9, rather than the current 5, Council districts;
— elect all Councilmembers by district, rather than the current 5 by district and 4 at large; and
— reduce from 5 to 1 the number of Councilmembers each voter can vote for

FOR

AGAINST

Consider this. Every voter who looks at the ballot will be told that this charter amendment would reduce the number of council seats he or she may vote for from 5 to 1.

This is the exact same language that appeared on the ballot when a 9 district amendment was submitted to voters in 2004. That amendment was defeated on a 61-39% vote. Like 2020, 2004 was a presidential election year in which many – probably most – voters were interested in national politics and knew relatively little about the county.

I was one of those voters. I moved to the county in 2003 and 2004 was my first election here. At that point, I knew two things about MoCo. 1. It had a county executive named Doug Duncan who had appeared on TV during the hunt for the D.C. sniper. 2. There was a fight being waged over a big highway called the Intercounty Connector. (I checked to make sure its alignment was nowhere near my new house.) That was about it. So here I was in the voting booth trying to figure out what this 9 district question was. And I saw that it would reduce the number of council members I could vote for from 5 to 1. I thought that was a terrible idea. I like voting for elected officials so I voted NO. So did 61% of the electorate.

Supporters of 9 districts are going to cry foul but they have to acknowledge two things. 1. The language is indisputably accurate. 2. It has appeared on the ballot before so the council is following precedent.

Poison pills are hard to swallow. This pill could very well poison the electoral prospects of 9 districts.

Share
Adam Pagnucco, Montgomery County Council

Nine Districts for MoCo Submits 16,448 Signatures

By Adam Pagnucco.

Nine Districts for MoCo, a group that seeks to replace the current county council structure of 5 districts seats and 4 at-large seats with 9 district seats, has submitted 16,448 signatures in support of their 9 district charter amendment. The county board of elections will now begin verifying signatures. The group needs 10,000 valid signatures to get its charter amendment on the ballot.

The group’s raw signature count is not that different from the raw counts submitted by Robin Ficker for his 2016 term limits amendment (more than 18,000) and his current anti-tax amendment (more than 16,000). Both of those amendments qualified for the ballot and the term limits amendment passed. Maryland’s petition signature requirements are tough and some petitions that might appear to qualify at first glance have been thrown out. (For example, Ficker’s term limits petition was blocked in 2010.)

Nine Districts’ petition cover sheet is reprinted below. The phone number and address of the group’s chair have been redacted to protect her privacy.

Share
Republicans

MoCo Republicans Embrace Trump’s Views But Avoid the Name

Below is an email blast that I received from incoming MCRCC Chair Dennis Melby. I realize that email blasts tend to be shrill and designed to appeal to party militants but I was still struck by (1) how closely he embraces Trump’s views tightly even as (2) he refuses to say his name, an emerging trope among some Republicans who recognize that the President is just a dead political weight.

Even more striking is his caricature of the Black Lives Matter movement and its supporters, especially when juxtaposed with his vociferous defense of the police. There is no mention of George Floyd’s murder or of it being part of a long pattern of far too many Black people dying or suffering injuries in police custody. The police have an exceedingly tough job, made more difficult by weapons being so widespread in our society, but we must acknowledge and then figure out how to stop these killings of our neighbors and fellow citizens.

In contrast to Melby’s scaremongering language, the demonstrations in MoCo have been incredibly peaceful with broad based support. Indeed, the most noted case of violence was the man on the Capital Crescent Trail who assaulted the kids putting up pro-Black Lives Matter flyers. While I share his concern about crowds, demonstrations are outside and fortunately seem to have been related to relatively little transmission spread.

Moreover, it’s not like the man is a supporter of measures to contain COVID-19. Instead, he complains about every form of it. Everyone would love for kids to go back to school but it just isn’t safe now. For a start, there is simply no way to keep teachers apart from young kids or young kids from each other. Can you imagine a teacher trying to comfort a crying kid from six feet away? Older kids are hardly likely to use better judgement when leaders like this mock social distancing.

Here is the email:

Last week the Montgomery County Republican Central Committee elected me as Party Chairman for the remainder of the year, and I thank them for their support. We have such an important election in less than three months.

In the United States, in Maryland and in even in Montgomery county there’s a deepening feeling of frustration. Something’s just not right. No kids in school for the foreseeable future, work from home as much as you can, cut back on social activity for as long as it takes, but watch massive demonstrations and even violence as if it is acceptable.  It is not.

Although the police are our neighbors and family members there’s a small segment of the population on the far left bent on dismantling them and turning our defense against violence and threats over to social workers.  We need to continue the struggle for racial justice and against antisemitism, but under the guise of that struggle many people are fueling hatred and intolerance against “the others”, which can only lead to a lack of trust and understanding.

Just over the weekend the far left and many in the teachers unions have coordinated with the government to ban opening all in-person education in Montgomery county, public and private. Only a screen in front of a student is acceptable. This is not acceptable. We need an elected county government with common sense to check actions like this.

Yet we’re standing up. We say do everything you can to move on, safely and with sanity. Open the schools when you can, stop the violence and intimidation, support the cops who are vastly good, decent folks who want to do the right thing. While we all admit there’re wrong things in the world we know our American society strives to correct wrongs, to lift people up, and remain a place the world wants to come to.

So we stand with our first responders and laud them. We back the blue and hold their selfless works in admiration and respect. And we’re 100 percent sure that our great, perhaps the greatest medical establishment the world has ever seen will conquer this pestilence we’re faced with soon, not only for us, but for the world.

Believe me – both parties want to get back to boom times – one party to collect great taxes and the other party to provide great wealth. And yes, there are plenty of folks in between too! Even though the media portrays it differently we’re moving together as one united country, over the bumps in the road, fighting for family, community, freedom and justice.

Our November elections will reject the far-left extremists on the national level and move us closer to true representation on the local level. And the future will be bright, I know it.

Share

Maryland Politics Watch