By Adam Pagnucco.
Last night, I reprinted the Montgomery County delegation’s press release on a deal struck concerning Senator Ben Kramer’s bills on Park and Planning. Let’s remember that Kramer had two bills: one establishing a task force to report to the state on the “feasibility” of transferring Park and Planning’s functions to the county executive and another giving the executive new powers over the planning board. There is a bit of fine print that’s relevant to those concerned about Park and Planning.
First, the establishment of a voluntary workgroup obviates the need for Kramer’s task force. Accordingly, the House delegation’s Metro Area Washington Committee voted against Kramer’s task force bill last night. The workgroup will include many of the same members that would have been on Kramer’s task force and even includes a representative of Kramer himself.
Second, there have been MANY changes to Kramer’s other bill. That bill would have given the executive several new powers over the planning board, including:
The executive would select the board’s chair.
The executive would set the board chair’s salary.
The council would need the executive’s approval to discipline a board member.
A unanimous vote of the council would be needed to override the executive’s veto of a board appointment.
All of that was removed by committee amendments.
Instead, what remains is a series of ethics and transparency measures, including new language and amended language from Kramer’s original bill.
Kramer’s original bill prohibited board members from soliciting or transmitting political contributions, serving on fundraising or political committees, acting as political treasurers, organizing political committees, forwarding tickets for fundraising committees or “openly campaigning or volunteering for a campaign.” The new language says board members may not “solicit or accept from any person with business before the commission a financial contribution for any political candidate, political organization or ballot question” and may not “solicit from any person with business before the commission an endorsement of or opposition to a political candidate.”
Kramer’s bill required training for board members on harassment, diversity, equity, inclusion and the impacts of implicit bias. The new language requires training on ethics, drug and alcohol free workplaces and harassment and intimidation.
Additionally, the new language allows electronic submission of financial disclosures to the council.
So what should we make of all this? The Kramer bills kicked up a fecal fracas but the end result appears to be a nothing burger. County workgroups, commissions and task forces typically produce little other than paper. Remember the Organizational Reform Commission? The liquor control task force? The night time economy task force? The “Cross-Agency Effort to Streamline Building and Land Development Process?” Quick, name a major structural change that came about because these groups called for it.
Maybe it’s better this way. Let’s remember that this whole issue started not with a philosophical discussion over proper planning policy but with a dirty little civil war over drinking in the office after hours. Matters of high principle played little role unless folks have strong feelings about whether vodka or gin is a better match for tonic. Death by workgroup seems like a just fate for one of the county’s most tawdry disputes in recent memory.