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An amendment authored by Council Member Hans Riemer to add an elected council president was WITHDRAWN by its sponsor.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.
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.
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.
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.
A majority of the county council is content with the current council structure of five district seats and four at-large seats. They believe that a mix of district representation and countywide perspective serves residents best. It also does not escape them that a new structure of nine districts could complicate their plans for the next election. Of the six members who are not term limited, who would run for which seats in a nine district configuration?
Leaving a potential nine district charter amendment as the only council structure on the ballot would be a crapshoot. What if all the voters wanting change voted for it because it was the only change option on the ballot? So council members discussed placing an alternative charter amendment on the ballot that would be more palatable. What would it be? In devising their preferences, each council member had to consider three factors: what was best for the county (at least in their opinion), what could gather enough voter support to compete with nine districts and what was best for (or at least not injurious to) their own political futures. These being nine very different people at different points in their political careers, this was a very complicated conversation.
Two ideas rose to the top of discussion over the weekend.
Adding two council seats
Last year, At-Large Council Member Evan Glass told the county’s charter review commission (which studies charter amendments and makes recommendations to the council) that “more districts may be warranted.” Indeed, MoCo’s council districts have more than twice as many residents in them as the regional average. One topic of conversation centered on adding district seats with two being the most mentioned number. Another variant was adding one district seat and another at-large seat. Regardless of the nature of additions, this line of thought addressed the need for more seats (and districts) without disturbing the configuration of the existing council and its currently serving members.
Adding an elected council president
The Montgomery County Council does not have a four-year president elected to that position by voters. The District of Columbia, Baltimore City, and Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William Counties have presidents or chairs who are elected at-large. In Anne Arundel, Arlington, Baltimore, Frederick, Howard and Prince George’s Counties, the council or board selects its own officers, which is the system MoCo currently uses.
With this option, two corollary questions were generated. First, would an at-large council president replace one of the current at-large seats or would it be a brand new additional seat? Second, would the term limit clock “reset” for council president? In other words, if a term-limited council member were to run for council president and win, would that person be entitled to a new set of three consecutive terms? In 2016, when Prince George’s County (which has council term limits of two terms) created two at-large seats to go with its existing nine district seats, the county’s charter language explicitly allowed district incumbents to serve two more consecutive terms if they won at-large seats. The question of how term limits would apply is not an academic one for the three term-limited council members currently in office – Nancy Navarro, Craig Rice and Hans Riemer.
The problem with the council president proposal is not so much on its merits but rather that it is unresponsive to the public discussion, which has focused on two questions: should there be more district seats and should the at-large seats be eliminated? To my knowledge, no mass constituency has come forward and said, “You know, our problems would be solved if we had a permanent council president.” How does this dissuade anyone from voting for nine districts?
As of this writing, it seems the most likely proposal from the council will be to add two more district seats with no elected council president. But the council will not make a decision until Tuesday and there could be more twists and turns on this than on a country road in a blizzard.
Finally, there is one more bizarre possibility: what if the Nine Districts proposal does not make it onto the ballot? The group claims to have 15,000 signatures but the county board of elections has until August 14 to certify them. The group needs to have 10,000 valid signatures for certification; otherwise, regardless of the group’s claims, their amendment will not qualify for the ballot. The county council, however, must decide what question(s) it will put on the ballot this week. And so it’s possible that a council proposal could make it onto the ballot while the Nine Districts proposal fails to qualify.
Regardless of how it all turns out, it seems there is a strong likelihood that change is coming to Rockville.
Nine Districts for MoCo, the group seeking to replace the current county council structure of 5 district seats and 4 at-large seats with 9 district seats, claimed earlier today that it has obtained 15,000 signatures for its proposed charter amendment. Under the state’s constitution, a charter amendment proposed by voters must receive valid signatures from not less than 20% of registered voters or at least 10,000 voters. The group’s Facebook post appears below.
The original deadline for receipt of petition signatures was Monday, July 27. However, the State Board of Elections extended the deadline by one week due to the COVID-19 crisis, meaning that the group may submit its signatures to the county on Monday, August 3. The county board of elections must then verify the signatures to ensure that the 9 district charter amendment qualifies for the ballot.
The group’s declaration was shared on Facebook by the Parents’ Coalition of Montgomery County, the Montgomery County Republican Club, the Republican District 16 Team, the Conservative Club of Maryland and former Montgomery County Republican Party Chairman Mark Uncapher.
Roughly a year after the Montgomery County Ethics Commission began receiving complaints about Chief Administrative Officer Andrew Kleine’s promotion of his book, the county has finally banned the use of tax dollars to purchase it.
The ethics commission’s report states that county employees began complaining about Kleine “during the summer of 2019.” The commission requested that the county’s inspector general begin investigating Kleine on September 4, 2019. The inspector general completed the investigation and sent a report to the ethics commission on December 12, 2019. At some point thereafter, Kleine offered a proposal to “cure” the issue which the ethics commission accepted and signed on July 1, 2020.
The ethics commission’s report states that the county bought 89 copies of Kleine’s book from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019 for a total of approximately $3,000. It contains no information about book purchases since then.
On July 20, 2020, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Fariba Kassiri – who reports directly to Kleine – sent out the email below to county managers advising them that county funds cannot be used to purchase Kleine’s book so long as he remains a county employee. The amount of county money spent on the book between September 30, 2019 and July 20, 2020 has not yet been reported.
In accordance with the CAO’s Proposal to Cure certain violations of the Ethics Law and the Ethics Commission’s subsequent acceptance of the proposal on July 1, 2020, I am advising you that your Department/Office should not purchase any copies of City On The Line by Andrew Kleine, so long as Andrew remains County employee. This means no purchases can be paid for through the Oracle system, by P-Card or by reimbursing employees for the purchase of this book.
Please share this information with your appropriate staff and let me know if you have any questions or need additional information.
Thank you,
Fariba Kassiri Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Montgomery County, Maryland Offices of the County Executive
When the county council met yesterday to consider the case of admitted ethics violator and Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Andrew Kleine, one word alone can describe what happened: Eruption. Rockville was covered by a black cloud of ash and lava sprayed through the streets as the council held very little back. Montgomery County Government has never seen anything quite like it.
The basics are simple: last year, executive branch county employees (all of whom work under Kleine) complained to the ethics commission about his book marketing and his relationship with contractors with whom he had done private business and then had gone on to help obtain county contracts. After an investigation by the county’s inspector general, Kleine proposed a “cure” which involved the payment of $5,000 and his abstention from outside employment. The ethics commission accepted the cure and the county executive has allowed Kleine to remain as CAO. Seventh State has previously published columns on the issue on July 2, July 7, July 9 and July 27.
Kleine was not present at the council’s meeting, leaving ethics commission chair Rahul Goel and ethics commission staff director Robert Cobb to brief the council on Kleine’s ethics case. Before elaborating on the situation with Kleine, Goel and Cobb suggested a need for mandatory ethics training for all county employees, including elected officials. No one disagreed with that. But the council did not buy that ethics training alone would have prevented Kleine’s actions. What followed was a remarkable and unprecedented display by the council members in which some walked right up to the line of calling for the CAO’s resignation without actually crossing it. Consider these quotes from the briefing.
*****
Council Member Nancy Navarro
Training is important but how would that have avoided this situation? And it’s one thing for an employee to have done something like this but when it’s the Chief Administrative Officer, that raises for me some concerns because the employees, the county government employees obviously are under the Chief Administrative Officer and it is very difficult with a straight face to say to our employees “you’re going to have to go to mandatory training” when the Chief Administrative Officer himself didn’t seem to understand the basics of ethics and conflicts of interest…
I personally still have some concerns regarding the ability of Mr. Kleine to be the Chief Administrative Officer of our county government when there was such a lapse in judgment regarding something like this.
Council Member Gabe Albornoz
I’m troubled that Mr. Kleine was not put on administrative leave during the course of the investigation and continued in his role as the head of procurement for our entire county through this investigation. I’m concerned that the county executive has not reached out to my colleagues and I to express how his administration has taken this matter extraordinarily seriously, how there has been, I believe, a statement from the county executive but not much more than that in terms of his comments on this particular matter.
Because the ripple effect of a situation like this is profound. What do we say to department heads who are also found guilty of similar violations? That you get one strike? You get a pass the first time around and yes, there is a cure, but the cure for the payment of $5,000 and the retainment of employment is significant in light of what we have seen. And I appreciate those recommendations and I also appreciate the recommendation of additional training.
But the broader question here is trust. And I worked in an executive branch for twelve years and know how important that trust is among colleagues. And I don’t believe enough has been done beyond this cure to repair the damage from the messaging that this sends to all the county government, that this sends to people that deal in their business with county government. And I don’t think quite frankly that this matter has been taken seriously enough by this administration. And that’s a concern.
Council Member Hans Riemer
This whole incident reinforces a concern that I have had about – and I think many people in the county government have had about the chief administrator’s work. The county executive has allowed him to really apply his personal business theory, his personal business practice, “turn the curve,” to his management of the county government. The county executive has required all of our departments to participate in something that really often feels like a demonstration project for a consulting practice. And it often feels like it substitutes jargon for real management initiatives. And that has been weighing on me for a lot of time. And I think that this report just raises some real questions about the continuing of the consulting business and really whether the intended – whether the chief administrator’s success is the county’s success. And I think that that is weighing on a lot of people and department heads and managers. And I think we do have an issue. We need to restore the confidence of this county government in the leadership of the executive branch.
Council Member Craig Rice
At the end of the day, this falls on the county executive. The county executive wants to continue to have the number two person in charge be a person who has committed serious ethics violations, that’s a choice he’s going to have to justify, that’s a choice that he’s going to have to stand up and say this is why he feels as though it’s comfortable to have this person still in charge in a leadership position.
Council Member Andrew Friedson
Public trust is the only currency that we have in public life. It’s all we have in terms of our ability to govern, and to me, this speaks directly to public trust. And it’s why I share many of the comments of colleagues of how disturbed and disappointed I am by the contents of the ethics report because that’s what this speaks to. And it’s not a member of the county government, it is not some county employee, it is the top county employee, the person who is in charge of running the government. And I speak similarly to comments that were made about – the comments about training. This is not a training issue. Let’s not obscure what happened here. This is specifically a clear violation of ethics and of public trust. That’s what it is. It is a massive, massive failure of judgment in the highest position in county government…
When we talk about this as being a cure, it’s kind of a euphemism. What this really is effectively is a plea agreement.
*****
Volcanic eruptions can be hard to survive due to their pollution of the atmosphere, the danger of lava flows and the potential for subsequent discharges. In this case, the repeat discharge potential is real with multiple council members asking whether Kleine received special treatment (a subject for another time!) and requesting more information. Lava, like water, can drip drip drip.
With the council’s eruption threatening to bury the executive branch in a blanket of burning ash, the big question now is: why has the county executive allowed Kleine to stay? And will that continue?
In an open meeting tomorrow, the county council will consider placing two charter amendments limiting property taxes on the ballot along with an amendment by Robin Ficker, which has already qualified. Let’s compare the three proposals – Ficker’s, one by Council Member Andrew Friedson and his colleagues on the council’s Government Operations Committee and one by County Executive Marc Elrich – to current law.
What would be limited?
Current charter limit: An annual growth limit is applied to the total dollar volume of real property tax collections.
Ficker: Same as current charter limit.
Friedson: A limit would be applied to the weighted average tax rate on real property.
Elrich: A limit would be applied to the real property tax rate but there is a lack of clarity on which rate. It could apply to the general property tax rate, which all county residents pay. Or it could apply to the weighted average tax rate, which includes both the general tax and many other smaller property taxes that are specific to function and/or geography. This issue needs to be decided one way or the other if this proposal appears on the ballot.
How would the limit be applied?
Current charter limit: The annual growth in the total dollar volume of real property tax collections is limited to the growth rate in the Washington-Baltimore consumer price index in the previous year. A few categories of property are exempted from this limit (notably new construction during the fiscal year).
Ficker: Same as current charter limit.
Friedson: The weighted tax rate on real property would not be allowed to increase without a unanimous vote of current council members.
Elrich: The property tax rate (whichever option is picked) would not be allowed to increase without a vote of two-thirds (six) of the council members.
Is there a waiver?
Current charter limit: Yes. The limit may be exceeded if all current council members vote to do so.
Ficker: No. The limit on property taxes is absolute (subject to state law).
Friedson: Yes. The limit may be exceeded if all current council members vote to do so (as in current law).
Elrich: Yes. The limit may be exceeded if two-thirds (six) of the council members vote to do so.
Are there disproportionate impacts on different taxpayers?
Current charter limit: No.
Ficker: No.
Friedson: No.
Elrich: Yes. The taxable value of owner-occupied residential property would be allowed to increase at a maximum rate of 3% per year. Other types of property would not be subject to this limit.
Who wins and loses under each option?
That depends on who you are and what your interest in taxes is.
People who depend on county services (other than schools) lose the most under the Ficker amendment, which ties the growth in property tax receipts to the rate of inflation. Inflation is low and might even be negative this year. If the Ficker amendment passes, it will raise the possibility that property tax collections will screech to a halt with limited ways to deal with that.
Groups favoring tax increases gain the most from the Elrich amendment because it lowers the threshold of breaking the tax limit from all current council members to two-thirds (six) of the council members.
Owners of commercial property and renters of both residential and commercial property will be disadvantaged under the Elrich amendment because they won’t get the 3% growth limit that homeowners will. Over time, the tax burden will shift away from homeowners and onto commercial entities and renters – including residential renters. This is exacerbated by the fact that the Elrich amendment makes property tax increases easier as stated above.
For stakeholders in MCPS’s operating budget, the entire discussion is irrelevant. That’s because a change to state law in 2012 allowed counties to ignore charter limits for the purpose of dedicating funding to approved budgets of local school boards. Since state law trumps county charters, no charter amendment can stop the council from passing a dedicated tax for MCPS. The Elrich administration included such a dedicated tax in its recommended FY21 budget but the council opposed it.
Ficker’s amendment looks to be headed to the ballot because it received enough petition signatures to qualify. We shall see what, if anything, the council decides to put on the ballot along with it.
Nearly a year ago, I wrote a column called “Kleine on the Line” about the county’s embattled Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), Andrew Kleine. Back then, I wrote:
Andrew Kleine is a smart guy with interesting ideas and a lot to offer. But we are now at a big moment. The chief administrative officer is the single most critical non-elected employee of county government. He or she must be beyond reproach and in total alignment with the county executive’s priorities.
A year later, Elrich has paid a price in the form of a searing report by the ethics commission and the inspector general detailing how Kleine steered county contracts to his business partners and converted county government into a book club. Now Kleine really is on the line as the county council is due to discuss his ethics problems in an open meeting tomorrow.
The ethics commission report by itself would generate harsh consequences in any other administration. But it is not the only issue with regard to the CAO’s record. Kleine described implementing Elrich’s campaign-era “90 Days Financial To-Do List” as one of his top priorities in November 2018, but numerous promises in that list have gone unfulfilled or under-fulfilled. The list included a ten-year financial plan (not done as of the FY21 budget), a “structural review of all departments in partnership with the county’s unions” (where is it?), an innovation fund (cut back from a $2 million request last year to one $71,545 software project) and a promise to “introduce or strengthen mechanisms that hold county leaders accountable to both other employees and to the public.” That last one reeks with irony.
There is more. Restructuring in cooperation with the unions was a major Elrich campaign promise, but since the unions have put their objections to Kleine in writing, whether this can be completed with Kleine having any part in it remains in doubt. The CAO’s office would normally have a role in approving department head nominees and the nominations of Vennard Wright (technology services) and Tonya Chapman (police department) were both train wrecks due to lack of vetting. The administration’s two-year budgeting initiative, with which Kleine was directly involved, was resisted by the county council and made no appearance in the FY21 budget. And it’s unclear whether Kleine was directly involved with the $10 million “magic asterisk,” the illegal negative appropriation in the executive’s recommended budget intended to account for phantom savings from “cost efficiencies.” But if he did have a role in it, add that to the above list.
The CAO preaches “outcome budgeting” in his book and elsewhere, but given the above record, what has been done that has yielded a positive, documented and significant financial benefit for the county?
Now let’s put all this into context. At the time of Kleine’s arrival in county government towards the end of 2018, two other events were occurring. First, Kleine’s predecessor – 12-year CAO Tim Firestine – was leaving. Unlike Kleine, who had never worked in MoCo government before, Firestine had been with the county for nearly 40 years. Before he was CAO, he was the county’s highly regarded finance director for 15 years. He was well known and well respected in both the executive and legislative branches. Firestine wasn’t warm and cuddly, but no one disputed that he was honest, competent and totally uninterested in self-promotion. He left very big shoes to fill.
The other huge event was the revelation that former economic development official Peter Bang had stolen $7 million from county government. The news was arguably the biggest scandal in county history and shocked people who had worked with Bang, who cultivated a reputation as a sharp dressing, no-nonsense professional. In the aftermath of Bang’s arrest, ethics became an even higher priority in a government that prided itself on avoiding the municipal corruption that so often plagues other jurisdictions in the region.
Into this arena descended Kleine, who immediately set out to direct county contracts to his private business partners and began promoting his book throughout county government and beyond. Bear in mind that 99% of county employees knew little or nothing of Kleine when he arrived. This was the first impression he was making on them. Say what you will about MoCo government, but it is full of professional, experienced and dedicated people – both managers and rank-and-file – who would never think of going anywhere near a conflict of interest. How did they see Kleine’s behavior? We don’t know how all of them saw it, but we do know from the ethics report that employees from two different county departments went to the ethics commission to complain. If these employees are still in county government, they are still working for Kleine even after he admitted to violating two sections of ethics law.
There has been no allegation of criminal activity by Kleine but he is guilty of extremely bad judgment that went on for months. How can he remain in his current role? He is the administrative head of county government. The next time he appears before the county council (in person or virtually), he has to know that all nine of them will be thinking about his ethics violations. The same goes for his own employees. Is there a senior manager anywhere in county government who has not read the ethics report? How can Kleine command the respect and good will any CAO needs to run the government?
The other question here is: where was Elrich? In the spring of 2019, rumors were everywhere about Kleine’s book promotion and his contractors. Was Elrich completely unaware of what was happening or was he aware and saw nothing wrong with it? Neither scenario is appealing. Kleine is the most senior non-elected person in the administration and reports to only one person – Elrich. If Kleine remains CAO after a slap on the wrist, it’s an open question as to whether Elrich is capable of firing anyone – or even disciplining them – for misconduct. What impact will that have on the culture of the executive branch?
That brings us to the county council, which is due to discuss Kleine at an open meeting tomorrow. The council can’t discipline Kleine directly – that is the prerogative of Elrich alone. But the council’s views on Kleine relate to a major theme of this term: the council’s lack of respect for the Elrich administration. The council has voted down Elrich’s labor agreements, rejected his approach to fixing the county’s balky public safety communications system, rejected his tax hike proposal (on the very day he offered it), rewritten his second budget, rejected his first nominee for police chief, passed its own set of health regulations in protest of his performance on COVID testing and regularly ignores his input on legislation. Then came Elrich’s hot mic joke that the council is allegedly “fact proof,” which drew harsh responses from Council Members Nancy Navarro and Gabe Albornoz. It’s hard to imagine the council having an even worse opinion of the administration, but if it comes to believe that Elrich tolerates unethical conduct, his influence will dwindle to zero. That’s obviously bad for Elrich. It’s also not so great for the daily function of county government.
