By Adam Pagnucco.
It was a chilly and rainy night in December, more than a year ago, when a former planning board member leveled shocking allegations against his former chair. And he did so in public – at a state legislative hearing, on camera for the world to see. Among the charges alleged by Partap Verma were:
1. Former Planning Board Chair Casey Anderson, who along with Verma and the rest of the board had been forced out of their positions by the county council two months before, was empowered “to change the work plan of the OIG [Office of Inspector General] inspector and influence the opening and closing of investigations.”
2. Anderson had used that ability “in an abuse of power” to direct the OIG to keep two investigations open – one against a sitting council member and another against a former planning commissioner – “for the purposes of using this information at a later date.”
3. A sitting council member had directed both Verma and Anderson to fire Planning Director Gwen Wright, saying, “The board reports to the council and we are your bosses.”
4. Verma also said, “Finally, there has been a lot of misinformation during the past few months and I will say that the only body authorized to review unethical behavior in this instance is the Maryland State Ethics Commission. When they make a finding of a state ethics violation, it will be published on their website and I’ll look forward to giving a very important update to this body when I am legally able to do so.”
Former Planning Board Member Partap Verma speaks to Montgomery County’s state legislators on December 15, 2022.
These were just the latest charges directed at Anderson. Months earlier, Anderson had admitted to drinking in his office after hours and was docked a month’s pay by the county council. Verma and another board member were docked one day’s pay. The issues at the board should have ended there, especially since the terms of both Anderson and Verma were due to end next summer.
But instead things got worse. FAR worse.
Two days after the drinking fines were levied, an email by Verma to the council was leaked to WJLA in which Verma alleged that Anderson had created a “toxic misogynistic and hostile workplace” and cited three specific “incidents.” Wright, the award-winning planning director, defended Anderson and co-signed an email to the county council supporting him. The next day, Verma and the rest of the board (minus Anderson, who recused himself) fired Wright, who later sued Park and Planning and recently settled. By the next week, the council forced the entire board, including Anderson, to resign.
The scandal took a huge toll. First, there was the firing of Wright, who had forged a distinguished career and was due to retire with honors in a couple months. Instead, she spent months in litigation with her former employer. Next there was the agency itself, which was thrust into chaos and victimized by multiple bills seeking to transfer authority over its functions to the county’s executive branch. And then there was Anderson, who had been accused of all manner of abuses and unethical behavior and was forced out by the council without an investigation. Not only did Anderson lose many months of pay prior to his scheduled departure the following summer, he now had a black cloud over his head – a cloud he was powerless to remove.
And what of the allegations against Anderson?
First, Park and Planning’s inspector general refuted Verma’s assertions that Anderson had corrupted her work just four days after he alleged so in an open hearing. Inspector General Renee Kenney wrote, “During my five years as the Inspector General, the former Montgomery County Chair did not influence nor control the direction of any investigation.” She also wrote, “The OIG has never investigated a sitting council member.”
And then in April, more than six months after he was forced out by the council, a Park and Planning internal investigation exonerated Anderson. Concerning Anderson, to whom the investigation referred as “Person B,” the report found:
“Based on our findings, we did not find any facts that support the idea that Person B created a toxic or misogynistic workplace.”
“We found nothing that supported the idea that Person B had created a hostile work environment.”
Instead, the report found fault with two of Anderson’s unnamed accusers, who were described as “fishing for something and trying to stir up trouble” and “badgering these employees to report something that they did not feel needed to be reported.” It was the accusers, not Anderson, who may have created a hostile work environment because they “were working very hard to collect information,” conduct which “seems to have been extremely disruptive to the Commission’s work.” The full report is astounding stuff.
What should we make of all this?
Let’s remember who Casey Anderson is. As chair of the planning board, he was one of the most powerful people in local government. In fact, my sources once selected him as the most influential non-elected person in county politics. His role in crafting Thrive 2050, drafting the 2017 Bethesda Downtown Plan and promulgating multi-modal place-making across the county makes him a historic figure in MoCo.
And yet, none of that power or influence did him any good in the end. Despite his contributions to the county, accusations that were leaked to the media and ultimately found to be meritless caused the county council to remove him from his post and blackened his reputation for months. The council could have said, “These allegations are serious. Let’s investigate them quickly and then figure out what to do.” They did not. And a heavy price was paid, both by the agency and its former chair.
No one responsible for these events has ever apologized. Not to Anderson, not to the agency’s employees and not to the taxpayers who had to pay the costs of former Planning Director Gwen Wright’s lawsuit. The Post reported that her settlement cost $100,000 but did not itemize her court costs and attorney fees.
The treatment of Casey Anderson was a travesty of justice. Let’s not be so quick to punish the accused without due process the next time.