Who is on the Charter Board, Just who is supporting this measure? Who wrote it? Options

[Enrico]

Who are the folks listed on the Contact Us page of the Charterboard.org site? What is their background and why are they serving in this position?

[samy0]

David- I applaud your persistence and if more people would have had better" information like this it might have had a shot. I think the problem you are going to run into is the "status quo". If you or the board can't show the everyday Joe how this is going to benefit them and serve them people will be content to let things remain the same. Apathy rules Washco (IMG:http://www.herald-mail.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

[Yossarian]

I don't know that it's so much apathy, as status quo.

Most people are resistent to change and look suspiciously at things of which they never were adequately informed.

[samy0]

I don't know that it's so much apathy, as status quo.

Most people are resistent to change and look suspiciously at things of which they never were adequately informed.

OK combination of status quo, apathy, and healthy suspicion of ALL public officials (IMG:http://www.herald-mail.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[DavidHanlin]

David- I applaud your persistence and if more people would have had better" information like this it might have had a shot. I think the problem you are going to run into is the "status quo". If you or the board can't show the everyday Joe how this is going to benefit them and serve them people will be content to let things remain the same. Apathy rules Washco (IMG:http://www.herald-mail.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

Good morning. I wouldn't use the term persistent in this case. I confess, I was totally immersed in the Charter deliberations for over a year, and have insights on the implications perhaps more than all but 2 or 3 people in the County. That being said all the feedback that the Charter Board and Friends of Charter Home Rule received is being compiled and is being put into a written report. That report will be made available to the public when it is done. I suspect that this report will issued in the next few weeks.

[txexpatriot]

Whopee doo! If it was that important, how come the packet wasn't done 6 mos. b-4 the election? hmmm..maybe I just have a suspicious nature, but I do not trust those 'who know what's best for me'.

[DavidHanlin]

Whopee doo! If it was that important, how come the packet wasn't done 6 mos. b-4 the election? hmmm..maybe I just have a suspicious nature, but I do not trust those 'who know what's best for me'.

The packet is an evaluation of the process and feedback we got the citizens of Washington County.

If you are suggesting that the information on charter should have been available six months before the vote, that would have been nice. However, the Maryland Constitution does not allow that much time. The schedule is set by law.

As for advanced notice. I don't know what more we could have done. All meetings of the Charter Board were open to the public. All meetings were announced in advance. A draft was completed in August 2007 with two months of public comment. During the public comment phase we participated in 30-40 public presentations. We ran articles in the Herald Mail. Our website was up and working. These Forums were available. Once we completed the public comment phase, we made changes. The version of the Charter that was to appear on the February ballot had to be finalized by October 30. We did that.

Being final on October 30 gave citizens November, December, January and until February 12 to review it. This came after the months of September and October for the public comment phase. By my calculation once the charter was drafted, it was available for 5 1/2 months, including 2 months during which public comment could be made to change it.

I think we came as close to your request as was legally possible. We had no money to promote the effort. The Herald Mail ran many articles and letters on it. Any thing else we could have done? I would love to include your suggestion in our final report.

[hagopinion]

Whopee doo! If it was that important, how come the packet wasn't done 6 mos. b-4 the election? hmmm..maybe I just have a suspicious nature, but I do not trust those 'who know what's best for me'.

The packet is an evaluation of the process and feedback we got the citizens of Washington County.

If you are suggesting that the information on charter should have been available six months before the vote, that would have been nice. However, the Maryland Constitution does not allow that much time. The schedule is set by law.

As for advanced notice. I don't know what more we could have done. All meetings of the Charter Board were open to the public. All meetings were announced in advance. A draft was completed in August 2007 with two months of public comment. During the public comment phase we participated in 30-40 public presentations. We ran articles in the Herald Mail. Our website was up and working. These Forums were available. Once we completed the public comment phase, we made changes. The version of the Charter that was to appear on the February ballot had to be finalized by October 30. We did that.

Being final on October 30 gave citizens November, December, January and until February 12 to review it. This came after the months of September and October for the public comment phase. By my calculation once the charter was drafted, it was available for 5 1/2 months, including 2 months during which public comment could be made to change it.

I think we came as close to your request as was legally possible. We had no money to promote the effort. The Herald Mail ran many articles and letters on it. Any thing else we could have done? I would love to include your suggestion in our final report.

Hey David,

Thanks for your comments. I was wondering if any citizen feedback occurred at all and if it did was it taken into consideration. Actually, not taken into consideration but actually changed the minds of the committee?

"We had no money to promote the effort"? What about all of the signs? How much did that Full Page ad in the Herald Mail cost?

Knowing what you know now does the committee think they will hear all of the suggestions that have now came out and plan to change it so that the majority will be more satisfied when it is re-released? Such as County Executor, Less Commissioners, less of a percentage of County to make changes ect. ect. ect.

[DavidHanlin]

Whopee doo! If it was that important, how come the packet wasn't done 6 mos. b-4 the election? hmmm..maybe I just have a suspicious nature, but I do not trust those 'who know what's best for me'.

The packet is an evaluation of the process and feedback we got the citizens of Washington County.

If you are suggesting that the information on charter should have been available six months before the vote, that would have been nice. However, the Maryland Constitution does not allow that much time. The schedule is set by law.

As for advanced notice. I don't know what more we could have done. All meetings of the Charter Board were open to the public. All meetings were announced in advance. A draft was completed in August 2007 with two months of public comment. During the public comment phase we participated in 30-40 public presentations. We ran articles in the Herald Mail. Our website was up and working. These Forums were available. Once we completed the public comment phase, we made changes. The version of the Charter that was to appear on the February ballot had to be finalized by October 30. We did that.

Being final on October 30 gave citizens November, December, January and until February 12 to review it. This came after the months of September and October for the public comment phase. By my calculation once the charter was drafted, it was available for 5 1/2 months, including 2 months during which public comment could be made to change it.

I think we came as close to your request as was legally possible. We had no money to promote the effort. The Herald Mail ran many articles and letters on it. Any thing else we could have done? I would love to include your suggestion in our final report.

Hey David,

Thanks for your comments. I was wondering if any citizen feedback occurred at all and if it did was it taken into consideration. Actually, not taken into consideration but actually changed the minds of the committee?

"We had no money to promote the effort"? What about all of the signs? How much did that Full Page ad in the Herald Mail cost?

Knowing what you know now does the committee think they will hear all of the suggestions that have now came out and plan to change it so that the majority will be more satisfied when it is re-released? Such as County Executor, Less Commissioners, less of a percentage of County to make changes ect. ect. ect.

The money was not collected to promote the Charter until January when Friends of Charter Home Rule registered with the state. So there was no money to promote during the public comment phase. We raised a total of $15,000 from nearly 40 individuals and organizations with no on entitty giving more than a $1000 and as little as $10. A very frugal campaign. Spending reports by Friends of Charter Home Rule and those opposed...Committee against the Expansion of Government ...which are due in October, may be of interest to you.

As for the report, it will be made public. There will be several recommendations about the contents of the charter to the community and to any future Charter Board. I am very confident that there will be specific recommendations on referendum. However, there were issues that will not likely be addressed. For example, you were joined by many others who wanted a County Executive, but there are equally as many who are strongly opposed to a County Executive. A County Executive would likely cost upwards of a half million dollars. That would have been shot down due to cost, alone. [In this latest effort we tried to point out that a County Executive could be added at a later date, but that did not hold sway.] The most contentious issue. in my mind, was districts.

In the original August draft we had a scheme whereby there would be five council members elected by district and two elected at-large. We received overwhelming opposition to it over the idea of establishing districts. Hagerstown had wards at one time. It was a disaster. So districts left a bad taste among Hagerstown area citizens. So the Charter Board dropped that idea and went with the at-large model. However, during the campaign...after the charter could not be changed...people came out of the woodwork screaming for districts. But the Hagerstown area residents liked the change to at-large.

Districts sound great in theory. However, by Maryland law Count Councils can't have more than 9 members. Doing so would have made it easier to create districts, but the opposition to growing the size of Council would be loud. Witness you own comments about reducing the number of Council members back to 5. By keeping the number of Council members at 5 and having districts, the population of Hagerstown would still dominate every district. We tried to draw tentative districts under 5 & 7 member councils. Given US Constitutional requirements of "one man, one vote" and the Maryland limits, representatives from Hancock or south County could NOT be assured. Besides we did not believe that the Charter Board had the power to draw districts for the Charter. Do you think anyone would support districts having no idea as to what the districts looked like? I seriously doubt it would have been successful without that.

My point is that some issues like districts and county executive will be left to a future Charter Board to wrestle with. Perhaps that group can come up with a political formula or perhaps the politics may change, that will lead the way to a solution.

[hagopinion]

David again thank you for having a civil conversation on here. Sometime this type of communication is difficult to find. I really do appreciate you taking the time to answer some of these questions. One of the largest arguements that I heard against the charter was that they (voters) would not vote to spend any more money. So with that arguement; your discussion on the County Executor holds weight. However, the complaints that I heard about the 7 member had nothing to do with Ward system, it had to do with the extra $100,000 that would be spent each year.

On a seperate note; in my opinion the current system is not broke but could be improved. This is why I did vote for the Home Rule. However, I would have never donated a $1.00 to have the system changed. Could you provide insight why those that gave hard earned money for this project? As mentioned in my previous post it seemed to be a large group of business owners that might "get something" from this arrangement. This new system was advertised as a more fair system that provided a better system to all in the county. However, the big complaint that I heard was that these people donated money because they felt it would be easier to get things for their well being (business), not the county.

And finally, you skipped my first and most important questions; "I was wondering if any citizen feedback occurred at all and if it did was it taken into consideration. Actually, not taken into consideration but actually changed the minds of the committee?"

Thanks again

[DavidHanlin]

David again thank you for having a civil conversation on here. Sometime this type of communication is difficult to find. I really do appreciate you taking the time to answer some of these questions. One of the largest arguements that I heard against the charter was that they (voters) would not vote to spend any more money. So with that arguement; your discussion on the County Executor holds weight. However, the complaints that I heard about the 7 member had nothing to do with Ward system, it had to do with the extra $100,000 that would be spent each year.

On a seperate note; in my opinion the current system is not broke but could be improved. This is why I did vote for the Home Rule. However, I would have never donated a $1.00 to have the system changed. Could you provide insight why those that gave hard earned money for this project? As mentioned in my previous post it seemed to be a large group of business owners that might "get something" from this arrangement. This new system was advertised as a more fair system that provided a better system to all in the county. However, the big complaint that I heard was that these people donated money because they felt it would be easier to get things for their well being (business), not the county.

And finally, you skipped my first and most important questions; "I was wondering if any citizen feedback occurred at all and if it did was it taken into consideration. Actually, not taken into consideration but actually changed the minds of the committee?"

Thanks again

My apologies once again to everyone, especially HagOpinion, for taking so long to respond to the latest questions.

In your response of March 15, I see there are two questions. Let me tackle them one at a time. First, you asked, why people gave money to support the effort to pass Charter Home Rule. You went on to observe that it seemed to be a large group of business owners that might “get something” from this arrangement.

I confess I have struggled with this, a bit. There were over 700 supporters. They came from all walks of life. Yes, there are business leaders. But there are also retirees, teachers, students, truck drivers, waitresses, union members, tradesmen, etc.

But, yes, the 37 who gave money tend to be business owners who live in this community. They generally can afford to support an effort like this. However, not everyone who gave is wealthy. One person gave $10 cash. One person wrote a check for $100. They were not wealthy. I too gave money and I don’t’ consider myself wealthy. I can honestly say that can not think of any single person who gave financial support for the Charter Home Rule Initiative that stood to "get something."

I can’t see how I would “get something” out of having charter home rule adopted. I know most of the folks who gave money and can say that I don’t see how any of them would “get something” out of it. These are the types of citizens that support our local charities, underwrite community projects, support our churches, provide scholarships, etc. In the case of the Charter campaign, I think the supporters believe in it.

Admittedly, because of what they do around town, they can get political leaders to return phone calls easier than most average citizens. But they also see the problems with our current form of local government. They see the lack of openness. They see the lack of clear accountability. They see the cronyism and how money and lobbyist can corrupt government action, especially in Annapolis.

I recall one comment in Mail Call arguing that Charter Home Rule was being pushed by the developers. Looking at the list of people who endorsed Charter, I see one prominent developer. He did NOT give any money. He lent his name and the use of his property for campaign signs, but NO MONEY.

Conversely, when I approached another prominent developer about endorsing charter, I was rebuffed. To paraphrase his response to me…”Why should I endorse charter home rule? If I have a problem with the county or the state government, I go to [a member of the County delegation who shall remain nameless] and he takes care of it for me.” I thought maybe this was an isolated incident, but another member of our committee approached another developer and got a similar response. So the question should be asked “Who gets something?”


I will address your other point in a separate reply, perhaps tomorrow.

[DavidHanlin]

David again thank you for having a civil conversation on here. Sometime this type of communication is difficult to find. I really do appreciate you taking the time to answer some of these questions. One of the largest arguements that I heard against the charter was that they (voters) would not vote to spend any more money. So with that arguement; your discussion on the County Executor holds weight. However, the complaints that I heard about the 7 member had nothing to do with Ward system, it had to do with the extra $100,000 that would be spent each year.

On a seperate note; in my opinion the current system is not broke but could be improved. This is why I did vote for the Home Rule. However, I would have never donated a $1.00 to have the system changed. Could you provide insight why those that gave hard earned money for this project? As mentioned in my previous post it seemed to be a large group of business owners that might "get something" from this arrangement. This new system was advertised as a more fair system that provided a better system to all in the county. However, the big complaint that I heard was that these people donated money because they felt it would be easier to get things for their well being (business), not the county.

And finally, you skipped my first and most important questions; "I was wondering if any citizen feedback occurred at all and if it did was it taken into consideration. Actually, not taken into consideration but actually changed the minds of the committee?"

Thanks again

This is part two of my reply to Hagopinion from March 15. Your second question, Hagopinion, asked whether “citizen feedback [on the proposed charter] occurred at all and if it did was it taken into consideration?”

Absolutely! The draft charter was presented to the public for comment in late August 2007. Within a week, many members of the Charter Board were making presentations to any group that would have us. We spoke to church groups, service clubs, homeowners associations, and political bodies. I believe there were nearly 40 presentations. The paper ran some articles on the proposed charter. This feedback, while admittedly minimal, came to use through meetings, through conversations, email, postings to Herald Mail Forums, letters to the editor, etc.

The Charter Board met on at least two occasions to review the feedback and to make revisions to the proposed version. The feedback that caused the most subsequent discussion related to 1) size, as in number of members, of the Council, 2) should Council be elected at large, 3) was the signature threshold for referendum too high, and 4) did the proposed charter exempt too many issues from referendum.

Size or number of members of Council. The draft charter proposed an increase in the number of council members to seven. Based upon the feedback we received, the Charter Board actually voted once to reduce the number to five. But several factors lead us back to seven. They included there was 1) too heavy a work load for five part time members to properly prepare and execute their duties, 2) a need to increase the odds of historically under represented parts of the County having a representative elected, and, in the absence of a County Executive, to do something different than had been proposed in 1988 and 1977.

Elect the Council At-Large or by Districts. The draft charter proposed a change from election at-large to a “hybrid”; five members elected by districts and two elected at-large. Wicomico, Harford, and the “dreaded” Montgomery have “hybrid” models of Council of various sizes, meaning some members are elected at-large and some elected by district; Wicomico elects 5 by district and 2 at-large; Harford elects 6 by district and 1at-large, Montgomery elects 5 by district and 4 at-large.

We received the most feedback on this issue. The distinction between “hybrid” and district representation was quickly lost on the public. They overwhelmingly hated the idea of electing council members by districts. The only support for districts came out of meetings held in Hancock. We received almost no feedback from south county citizens one way or another. So the Charter Board considered the matter and with only one objection, voted to return to At-large election of members. The feedback had been so strong that there was very little discussion.

Signature Threshold for Referendum. The draft charter had proposed establishing a threshold of signatures from 10% of the registered voters in order to bring a legislative issue to referendum.

This limit is not without precedent in Maryland. Among the various charter counties across Maryland, with the exception of Prince Georges County, the threshold for signatures ranges from 5% of registered voters “calculated upon the whole number of votes cast in the County for Governor at the last preceding gubernatorial election” to 15% of registered voters. In general, municipalities, including at a minimum the City of Hagerstown, have thresholds of 20% of registered voters.

After processing the public feedback and considerable debate and discussion, the threshold was reduced to 7% of registered voters.

Exclusions from Referendum. The draft charter had excluded several items from referendum. Among the exclusions were delineation of councilmanic districts, annual budget, levy of any new taxes authorized by the General Assembly, and long term debt.

After feedback from the public, the Charter Board made changes. By abandoning the “hybrid model” there would be no councilmanic districts. Long term debt was distinguished into general obligation bonds; a.k.a., tax payer supported bonds, and revenue bonds; a.k.a., self liquidating bonds, with revenue bonds not eligible for referendum and general obligation bonds made eligible for challenge by referendum, albeit at a higher threshold. Taxes and annual budget were combined into a single Annual Budget and Tax Ordinance, but was left as an excluded item.

My recollection is that there were other items that were addressed but the above four were the major changes made as a result of citizen input.

As you can see the feedback the Charter Board received was significant and resulted in changes to the draft. Unfortunately, we were unable to really engage the community in the debate before we were required by law to put the charter into final form. During the campaign, the debate became intense. Look at the issue of Districts v. At-large election. Suddenly the voices of “no districts” disappeared and the voices “for districts” emerged. Also, during the public comment period there was strong support for not electing a County Executive. However, during the campaign the lack of an elected County Executive became an issue. Go figure!

[txexpatriot]

Maybe I should post this comment here..

After the latest city council televised meeting, I am glad we did not vote for Home Rule. As the saying goes, do I want one tyrant many miles away or 100 tyrants next door?

[DavidHanlin]

Maybe I should post this comment here..

After the latest city council televised meeting, I am glad we did not vote for Home Rule. As the saying goes, do I want one tyrant many miles away or 100 tyrants next door?

I am curious, txex, to what are you referring?

[Suburbanite]

I don't know about anyone else, but I voted against Home Rule because while lots of people had great claims about what it could do FOR me, no one came forward and addressed what it would do TO me. It sounded to me like this would wind up with the county being run like a city, complete with inane ordinances. I don't need the county deciding that I NEED sidewalks (along with the accompanying levy against my property to pay for them), or that I NEED streetlights to shine in my window all night long, or that I NEED to be required, upon penalty of a large fine, to clear my sidewalks (the ones I didn't want in the first place) within so many hours of a snowfall. These and much more are the types of mischief a city council loves to get into and force upon their subjects. I am immune to the city council thanks to the happy fact that my house is outside the city limits. I do NOT need a county council to force this sort of nonsense upon me. Besides, the counties that have Home Rule (Montgomery and PG counties spring to mind) are run with no regard to the rights of their citizens.

If the implementation of Home Rule that we voted on was so benign, why didn't its backers make the effort to demonstrate that?

[txexpatriot]

I don't know about anyone else, but I voted against Home Rule because while lots of people had great claims about what it could do FOR me, no one came forward and addressed what it would do TO me. It sounded to me like this would wind up with the county being run like a city, complete with inane ordinances. I don't need the county deciding that I NEED sidewalks (along with the accompanying levy against my property to pay for them), or that I NEED streetlights to shine in my window all night long, or that I NEED to be required, upon penalty of a large fine, to clear my sidewalks (the ones I didn't want in the first place) within so many hours of a snowfall. These and much more are the types of mischief a city council loves to get into and force upon their subjects. I am immune to the city council thanks to the happy fact that my house is outside the city limits. I do NOT need a county council to force this sort of nonsense upon me. Besides, the counties that have Home Rule (Montgomery and PG counties spring to mind) are run with no regard to the rights of their citizens.

If the implementation of Home Rule that we voted on was so benign, why didn't its backers make the effort to demonstrate that?

Because only the shadow knows! He knows all! (IMG:http://www.herald-mail.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)