By Adam Pagnucco.
One of the issues simmering underneath the county’s current budget debate is whether to bring back the People’s Counsel, an office that remains in law but has been without funding since the Great Recession. County Executive Marc Elrich would like to restore it and has proposed funding for it in his FY24 recommended budget. Some on the county council would prefer something different, if anything at all. What is the People’s Counsel and why should you care?
The Office of the People’s Counsel was established in 1990 and first funded in 1999. Its functions are listed in Sec. 2-150 of the county code. Its purpose statement reads:
Informed public actions on land use matters require a full exploration of often complex factual and legal issues. An independent People’s Counsel can protect the public interest and promote a full and fair presentation of relevant issues in administrative proceedings in order to achieve balanced records upon which sound land use decisions can be made. In addition, a People’s Counsel who provides technical assistance to citizens and citizen organizations will encourage effective participation in, and increase public understanding of and confidence in, the County land use process.
The People’s Counsel may participate in proceedings before:
(1) the Board of Appeals if the proceeding involves a variance or a special exception;
(2) the County Council (solely for oral argument) or the Hearing Examiner for the County Council if the matter involves a local map amendment, a floating zone plan approved under the zoning process or a conditional use; and
(3) the Planning Board if the proceeding involves action on an optional method development, a subdivision plan including a subdivision plan for a cluster development, or a site plan.
Additionally, “the People’s Counsel may also file a complaint under Section 59-G-1.3(b) alleging failure to comply with a special exception, or may seek a modification of a special exception under Section 59-G-1.3(c) or a revocation of a special exception under Section 59-G-1.3(e).”
The People’s Counsel is prohibited from participating in legislative proceedings or representing governments or private individuals.
The People’s Counsel position was funded, filled and active from 2000 through 2010. Its occupant was appointed by the county council. In 2008, the council’s Office of Legislative Oversight (OLO) issued a report examining the People’s Counsel’s functions and found a variety of opinions about its work. At that time, OLO recommended revisiting its purpose, duties and structure and postponing the reappointment of the existing People’s Counsel. The Great Recession prompted the council to zero out its funding in FY11 and the office has not functioned since.
Elrich wants to change that. He wanted to restore funding for the office last year, programming $224,598 and 2 positions in his FY23 recommended budget, but the council did not fund it. He is requesting $246,375 and 2 positions this year.
Council Members Andrew Friedson and Dawn Luedtke have instead introduced a bill that would create a Community and Zoning and Land Use Resource Office which would “provide an independent source of information to educate residents on how, when, and where they may participate in the public approval process for sketch plans, subdivisions, site plans, conditional use applications, and variances.” Opponents, including the county executive, believe the new office is inferior to the People’s Counsel because it cannot engage in advocacy.
I knew Martin Klauber, the former People’s Counsel, many years ago. At the time, I was president of one of the civic associations next to Holy Cross Hospital, which was about to embark on its latest expansion. Because the hospital owned many houses adjacent to its campus, some neighbors feared that it would knock down those houses and push further into the neighborhood. It turned out there was nothing to fear because the hospital’s outstanding president, Kevin Sexton, planned to expand vertically within his existing campus and allowed the neighbors to discuss the plans directly with the hospital’s architect. It could have been a fight but instead it was a great example of cooperation between a large employer and its neighbors.
In the early stages of these discussions, I met Klauber. I appreciated that his experience in county issues and knowledge of its processes far exceeded mine and he struck me as a useful resource. However, I found his exact role to be a bit ambiguous. Was he a neutral party? If there was a fight, could he be an advocate or an advisor? What was his role with county agencies like Park and Planning? It became a non-issue because there was no fight in the end, but if there had been a conflict, I would have asked those questions. In any event, I liked Klauber and was sad to see his office defunded during the Great Recession.
I am of two minds concerning the proposals for a People’s Counsel or a Community Zoning and Land Use Resource Office. On the one hand, there is a need for people in government who can explain to residents and businesses how the government functions. When I first became a civic activist, understanding how things worked was my first big challenge. I wanted a capital project: a new Forest Glen metro entrance. I had many questions. How did the capital budget work? What were the respective roles of the county, the state (which owns Georgia Avenue) and WMATA? Which steps had to happen and in what sequence? It was so COMPLICATED. I was lucky to have Glenn Orlin, the council’s capital budget and transportation guru, explain these things to me. But there are so many complex issues and not enough Glenns around to explain all of it.
However, there is an evolving trend of which we must all beware: the use of taxpayer money to fund advocacy. We have seen whiffs of this in the workings of the Policing Advisory Commission, county funding of non-profits who then engage in legislative advocacy (which may be incompatible with their tax status) and a proposal by a council member for spending on canvassing. Some of the support for the People’s Counsel has been framed in terms of pursuing racial equity, stopping development, stopping the installation of 5G cell towers and blunting the impact of Thrive 2050. Whether these priorities have merit or not, they should be pursued through private advocacy and not be financed with public dollars.
Ask yourself this question: do you want your tax dollars to be used against your will to advocate for policies you believe are against your own interest?
So yes, let’s have explainers, whatever we choose to call them. But regardless of the exact fate of the People’s Counsel, let’s be very careful about using tax dollars to pursue agendas which are better left to politics.