By Adam Pagnucco.
Senator Ben Kramer’s bills setting up a potential transfer of Park and Planning’s functions to the executive branch are arguably the hottest topic in county politics right now. They have been opposed by the current acting planning board chair, three former planning board members and a former twenty-year transportation planner. County Executive Marc Elrich has called criticism of the bills “totally dishonest” and Kramer defended them in an explosive performance at the county council.
Now comes Casey Anderson, the former chair of the planning board whose resignation was obtained by the council along with the rest of the board. Anderson has said nothing in public after the ouster of his board, but he has now submitted written testimony opposing what are now called “the power grab bills.” Anderson’s testimony to the state delegation is printed below.
*****
Emergency Bill MC-PG 105-23 and MC-PG 104-23
Testimony of Casey Anderson
I write to express my opposition to Emergency Bill MC-PG 105-23, which would give the Montgomery County Executive more power over the Planning Board, and MC-PG 104-23, which would establish a task force to consider removing the Montgomery Planning and Parks Departments from the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission and placing them in the Executive Branch of Montgomery County Government.
There is no reason to believe that shifting authority over Planning Board appointments from the County Council to the County Executive would improve accountability or transparency. Under current law members of the Planning Board are appointed by the County Council and are accountable to these elected officials. If the County Council is unhappy with any or all members of the Planning Board, the Council can remove them, as the experience of the past few months demonstrates.
The only difference under MC-PG 105-23 would be to give the County Executive the power to appoint the Chair and a larger role in appointing and removing other Planning Board members. It’s hard to see how shifting authority from one set of local elected officials to another would make the Planning Board more accountable or closer to the community. In fact, giving the County Executive power over the Planning Board and Department while reducing the role of the County Council would simply concentrate more power in a single person rather than an 11-member body, which seems unlikely to strengthen transparency or increase diversity of perspectives applied to the selection of Planning Commissioners.
The Planning and Parks Departments are among the best of their kind in the country, and they both routinely win regional and national awards for excellence. Their consistently superior performance over a period of decades is a testament to the quality of their staff, and the agency’s success in attracting and retaining the best possible staff is based in substantial part on its reputation for encouraging independent professional advice free from direct control by a single elected official. By placing the appointment of Planning Board members within the legislative branch of government, the current framework maintains democratic accountability while preserving the professional independence of the staff and its advice.
For these reasons, I urge you to oppose these bills.