By Adam Pagnucco.
Back in October, I predicted that problems at Park and Planning might generate a push to transfer its functions to the county executive. That prediction has since come true in a BIG way.
Look now at MC-PG 104-23, a state bill pertaining to Park and Planning introduced by Senator Ben Kramer (D-19). The bill would establish a “Restructuring Task Force” that would:
(i) study the feasibility of transferring duties of the Montgomery County Planning Board, the Planning Department, and the Parks Department of the Maryland–National Capital Park and Planning Commission to the Montgomery County government; and
(ii) make recommendations on restructuring the Maryland–National Capital Park and Planning Commission to no longer include Montgomery County.
A bit of history. The Maryland–National Capital Park and Planning Commission (Park and Planning’s formal name) was established by the General Assembly in 1927 to administer parks and carry out land use planning in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties. While there are certain shared administrative functions, the two counties’ day-to-day functions are overseen by different appointed boards which operate separately. In Montgomery County, the county council appoints planning board members, funds Park and Planning and has final say on many land use issues. (Acting Planning Board Chair Jeff Zyontz summarizes what the planning board actually does in my interview with him on November 15.)
Historically, the county council has regarded Park and Planning as its agency while the executive branch departments belong to the county executive. Every now and then, the issue of the agency’s authority and autonomy has come up. Back in 2011, the county’s Organizational Reform Commission, which was charged by the council with coming up with structural recommendations to save money during the Great Recession, made three recommendations concerning Park and Planning.
1. Transferring park user services out of Park and Planning and into the executive branch’s recreation department.
2. Transferring the park police, which is currently part of Park and Planning, into the executive branch’s police department.
3. Consolidating all information technology services across all agencies, including Park and Planning, under one chief information officer.
These proposals resulted in significant controversy at the time, especially with regards to the park police, and the council rejected all of them.
Now comes County Executive Marc Elrich, who cares more about land use than any of his predecessors. Elrich built his political career by opposing development all over the county and voted against many transit-oriented master plans when he was on the county council. Obtaining control over the planning department, which is currently out of the hands of the county executive, would be the signature coup of his entire tenure in politics. After the recent upheaval at the planning board, Elrich said he wanted a voice in picking planning board members and that led to speculation that he would go further.
And here we arrive at Kramer’s bill. The task force would consist of 18 members, 7 of whom would be appointed by or are employed by the county executive. Another member would be the president of MCGEO, which represents employees in both the executive branch and Park and Planning. Two would be state legislators appointed by the General Assembly’s presiding officers. The task force would be staffed by the executive branch. Given this lineup, the county executive would have heavy influence over the task force’s ultimate work product. Naturally, Elrich supports the bill.
It’s noteworthy that the bill was introduced by Senator Kramer, who endorsed Elrich in the primary and is close to MCGEO, which has filed multiple unfair labor practice charges against Park and Planning and stands to get better treatment from Elrich. Also noteworthy is that the union won tens of millions of dollars in COVID emergency pay from Elrich while getting roughly $400,000 from Park and Planning. A cursory exercise of connecting the dots suggests that the bill’s purpose is to siphon off Park and Planning’s authority while the agency is led by caretakers.
Council Member Andrew Friedson has called it a “power grab” and it’s hard to argue with him. Land use authority in Montgomery County has been spread between council members and appointed planning board members, thus bringing in multiple points of view. By transferring Park and Planning’s functions to the county executive, there would be one view that rises above the rest: the executive’s. Let’s set aside for a moment the views of the current executive on housing and land use – no matter who the executive is, we should be wary of giving any one person that much power.
Friedson explains what is really going on with this bill.
Since this is a state bill, the General Assembly will decide its fate. Montgomery County’s delegation of state legislators will get the first chance to weigh in. Friedson’s comments illustrate that this bill will be a cause for battle between the county executive and the council. The delegation has no stake in that fight and there are many issues at the state level deserving their attention. The smart move for them would be to stay out of this dispute.