More on Early Voting Locations in MoCo

The saga of MoCo early voting centers continues.

The current fracas started when in September the MoCo Board of Elections, by a party vote of 3 Republicans to 2 Democrats suddenly said two locations used previously, Praisner and Lawton, would no longer be used for early voting. Instead they voted for two other early voting centers.

The Democrats on the Bd of Elections, and then many others, were extremely upset. Basically they said that two early voting centers with large numbers of voters, many of them minorities, would be closed and replaced by early voting sites that were much less convenient for most voters.

After a huge outpouring of outrage, today the MoCo Board of Elections held a special meeting where the president, a Republican, offered what he called a compromise. He made a motion to change the previous vote on early voting centers by using the Praisner Center. The Democrats on the Board protested that the Lawton Center should also continue to be used, instead of a Potomac location they said was less convenient.

The debate on this subject was very long and, most unfortunately, nasty and personal at times. One Republican member of the Board alleged that the whole controversy was stirred up by the MoCo Democratic party. 

Democrats on the Board said there was little or no evidence that the switch from the Bethesda early voting location to Potomac would result in making it more easy for more people to vote and they presented lots of facts, statistics, and maps to prove their point.

At the end of the meeting, after public input that started out in a dignified manner degenerated into members of the audience yelling at the Board members, the Board voted 3-2 for what the Republicans called their compromise. The Praisner Center was reinstated as an early voting site but Bethesda was not.

It is likely that this controversy will continue.

Jamie Raskin at D18 Dem Breakfast Club

The speaker at today's meeting of the D18 Democratic Breakfast Club was Jamie Raskin. He gave an enthusiastic talk about his accomplishments in the Maryland State Senate and what he intends to do if elected to Congress in Maryland's 8th Congressional District in the primary election on April 26, 2016.

He covered a wide range of topics and during the question and answer session answered questions on even more topics, never showing anything less than great enthusiasm for his topics.

This concludes the D18 Dem Club's talks by what its leader considers the major candidates. Other Dem candidates for MD District 8 in Congress will be invited to the next meeting.

First Rockville Candidates Debate

Last night was the first debate of candidates for Mayor and City Council in Rockville, where the election is less than a month away.

There are 2 candidates for Mayor, the incumbent and a challenger, and 9 candidates for the 4 positions on the City Council. All were present and seemed, to me at least, to be qualified.

There were a few "hot" moments but mostly the candidates focused on policy issues. The moderator was excellent and his questions, prepared by the Chamber of Commerce, went into many policy issues. The only major problem, in my opinion, was that the audience was not allowed to ask any questions.

There will be more debates among the Rockville candidates, and probably also among the candidates running in Gaithersburg.

Open Meetings is Really the Law in Maryland and You Cannot Make Up Exceptions

Maryland has an Open Meetings Act to insure that citizens can observe government agencies in action. Some people in government may think they can create exceptions but they are not allowed to do that.

For example, yesterday morning the president of the MoCo Board of Elections said at a public meeting of a County Council committee that the three Republican members of the Board of Elections got together privately before an official meeting of the Board, to work out their strategy before they met with the other members of the Board. This is illegal.

I have filed a complaint with the Maryland Open Meetings Act Compliance Board to help explain this to the Board of Elections and all others. A copy of my complaint is below.

Paul M. Bessel
3700 Marble Arch Way
Silver Spring MD 20906
(email) besselpaulm@comcast.net
(phone) 240-669-8587

October 1, 2015

Open Meetings Compliance Board
c/o Attorney General's Office
200 St. Paul Place
Baltimore, MD 21202
OpenGov@oag.state.md.us

To the Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board:

I am filing this complaint against the Montgomery County Board of Elections, based on public statements made by the President of that Board at a public meeting this morning.

I have no animosity against the President or Members of this Board of Elections and I am willing to concede that those members of the Board who participated in the acts which will be described below may have acted in good faith and they thought they were permitted to do what they did. I am only seeking a decision of the Open Meetings Act Compliance Board that a violation occurred to assist the Montgomery County Board of Elections and any other groups similarly situated, to know what their legal responsibilities are concerning the Open Meetings Act.

This morning, October 1, 2015, from about 10am to about 12 noon, the President and Members of the Montgomery County Board of Elections were testifying before the Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee of the Montgomery County Council. The subject of their testimony and the details of the decisions of the Board of Elections that were being questioned is not relevant to this Open Meetings Act complaint.

What is relevant is that during this hearing, held with a number of members of the public present in addition to all the members of the Board of Elections, the President of the Board of Elections, James Shalleck, stated that before reaching a decision on the question of where early voting locations would be placed in Montgomery County during the upcoming elections, the three Republican members of the Board, constituting a quorum since a quorum of this Board consists of a majority and there are five voting members, met separately and without notice to anyone so that they could formulate the position they would take on this subject when the Board of Elections met to make its decision formally. The President of the Board of Elections said that he believed that so long as this informal pre-meeting was held with just the Republicans members of the Board of Elections, and no formal decisions were made, it did not contravene the Maryland Open Meetings Act.

A video recording of the meeting this morning, at which these statements were made by the President of the Board of Elections, is available.

In Compliance Board Opinion No. 01-2, issued January 12, 2001, concerning the complaint of Andrew B. White, Chairman, Montgomery County Fire Board, the Maryland Open Meetings Act Compliance Board ruled that:

    “Under the Open Meetings Act, a meeting occurs when a quorum of a public body convenes for the consideration or transaction of public business.” (Italics added) ... As we [the Open Meetings Act Compliance Board] have explained, even information-gathering at the earliest stages of policy formation is part of the consideration ... of public business....And as the Court of Appeals has observed, every step of the process ... constitutes the consideration or transaction of public business.” [internal quotation marks deleted for ease reading]

The opinion continued:

    “Four of the seven voting members of the Commission were present for the discussion concerning the proposed IECS regulations, a matter schedule to come before the full Commission. This group interaction about a Commission item of business invokes the Open Meetings Act, for in these circumstances neither the members nor the Chairman may shed their Commission identity as if it were an uncomfortable garment.”

These principles enunciated by the Maryland Open Meetings Act Compliance Board apply precisely to the incident this morning. The President of the Montgomery County Board of Elections, with all the other members of the Board sitting beside him and in a public meeting that was televised and video recorded, that he and the other Republican members of the Board had met privately and without any notice before an official Board of Elections meeting to decide on the joint position they would take when the Board met officially. This was a violation of the Maryland Open Meetings Act, even if the President and the other members present did not think they were doing anything wrong. The Maryland Open Meetings Act Compliance Board should assist them by stating that they acted in violation of the law and provide guidance how they can avoid such violations in the future.

Sincerely,
[signed]
Paul M. Bessel

copy to:    James Shalleck, President, Montgomery County Board of Elections
        Counsel to Montgomery County Board of Elections
        both at the following email address: elections@montgomerycountymd.gov
        

Happy Birthday, Montgomery County!

Today, October 1, in 1776, is the date when Montgomery County officially became a county in Maryland. It was carved out of Frederick County by the Maryland Constitutional Convention on Sept. 6, with an effective date of October 1.

Our county is named for Richard Montgomery, a hero of the Revolutionary War who died on the last day of 1775 while leading the Continental Army's attempt to conquer Canada. This was the first time counties in America (Montgomery and Washington County, Maryland) were named after heroes in the American Revolution.

The county seat was an area adjacent to Hungerford's Tavern, now Rockville.

In the 1790 first federal census, 18,000 people were counted in Montgomery County. In the latest census in 2010, a total of 972,000 were counted here, and there are now undoubtedly more than a million.

MD Congressional District 8 Candidates Debate

Last night (Sept. 30) the first debate took place among the 6 candidates in the race for the Democratic nomination (plus one unaffiliated) for the Maryland Congressional District 8. It was at the Silver Spring Civic Center and was sponsored by Progressive Neighbors and the Sierra Club. And it had some real heat!

The candidates were, in alphabetical order (1) David Anderson, (2) Kumar Barve, (3) Ana Sol Gutierrez, (4) Will Jawando, (5) Kathleen Matthews, (6) Jamie Raskin. Later in the debate, Liz Matory came in the room, said she was running as an unaffiliated candidate having left the Democratic party, and was seated at the candidates table.

The questions were all on the subject of the environment but the format allowed questions from the moderators, the public, and most interestingly from and to each other. That brought out the most heated part of the debate.

State Delegate Kumar Barve asked State Senator Jamie Raskin to explain his personal campaign contribution to State Senator C. Anthony Muse despite Muse's opposition to many progressive issues such as same-sex marriage. Senator Raskin angrily said this type of negative campaigning was common among Republicans but should not happen among Democrats.

The other heated exchange came when candidates were asked if their demographic (female, African American, Hispanic) should be considered in this race. 

It was very interesting and a video has been posted on Jonathan Shurberg's excellent blog, Maryland Scramble at http://marylandscramble.com/

All other upcoming candidate debates and forums that I know about will be listed at http://bessel.org/upcoming.htm