Bill MC/PG 105-15 (House Bill 652) would change the consecutive term limit provisions for the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission. Presently, commissioners who serve as Chair or Vice-Chair of the body may not serve more than 2 consecutive 4-year terms.
HB 652 would change that limitation, allowing a commissioner appointed from Montgomery County to serve two additional consecutive terms, as long as he or she serves as Chair or Vice-Chair.
Since commissioners are appointed by the County Executive, and not elected by voters, this would give a tremendous amount of political power to a Chair who could serve for 16 years in the role - longer than most would serve in any single county office. Christina Ginsberg, a Rockville resident and former president of the Twinbrook Civic Association, says the provision could create a "development czar who would have more power and a longer term than our elected officials."
The bill had its first reading in Annapolis yesterday. I can recall no public announcement or media coverage of this significant change being proposed, other than on the legislative and delegation websites. Even more troubling: no matter how many ways I try to search for this legislation on the County Council website, I get no results. This despite Council attorneys having apparently commented on the issue, according to a transcript of a December meeting of the commission. So much for "open data." By the way, the commission itself, not surprisingly, is in favor of MC/PG 105-15).
With developers wielding more influence in county politics than ever before, it's time to ask serious questions about this legislation.
Thanks for finding this. Sounds shady to me.
ReplyDeleteThanks for finding another example of backdoor deal.
ReplyDeleteHow long has the current chair been in office? That could explain a lot.
ReplyDeleteCurrent chair is in his second term. Clearly this is for him.
ReplyDeleteI don't care about the transit thing one way or the other. I am just curious what was sneaky about it? From what I read here and other places it was proposed and then dropped due to public opinion?
ReplyDelete6:15: The ITA was indeed handled in a sneaky fashion. The bill was filed late, and the public was only notified of the proposal 6 days before a public hearing. And that public hearing was scheduled for a Friday night. At 6:00 PM. I rest my case. It was temporarily "dropped" because they got caught with their pants down by residents and the County employees union.
DeleteNo case needed to be made, relax.
DeleteThe bill was literally late as in past a deadline or just very close to a voting event or the public hearing or other?
Flynn, it was filed past the filing deadline, which required a special vote to accept it by the delegates. It was then posted the Friday before the scheduled hearing, which was not properly advertised in local papers. Those announcements are usually published weeks in advance.
DeleteHow often are filings made past deadline and how often are they voted ok?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the rule for how much advanced notice is required?