The Charter Board has completed its charge of preparing a Home Rule
Charter. The Proposed Charter was submitted to the Board of County
Commissioners on Tuesday, October 30. The County Commissioners must
forward The Proposed Charter to the Board of Elections, which will place
the issue before the voters on the ballot scheduled for February 12.

This Charter reflects months of research, reflection, debate, public
input, public presentations and feedback, and more debate. On behalf of
the Charter Board, we appreciate your thoughts and comments.

The Proposed Charter is available on the website (www.charterboard.org).
Please review it and feel free to offer any additional comments.

i have a question. similar charters, to my knowledge, have failed to pass at least twice. why is this one different? or are they figuring "third time's a charm?"

Charter home rule has been proposed twice before in Washington County - once in 1977 and again in 1988.

One of the great advantages of charter government is the ability of the local residents to draft a document that suits them. There is a tremendous amount of flexibility allowed when drafting the charter. The previous versions were different than the current proposed Charter. For example, the previous versions provided for fewer councilmembers, a greater ability to borrow, and other changes to the financial management of the County. The Charter Board believes that the proposed Charter suits today's Washington County while giving citizens the ability to amend it in the future if appropriate.

We also believe that today's information age increase the Charter's probablility of success - the internet, forums such as this one and email were not widely available during the previous two attempts. We believe many more residents will be able to access information about the home rule in general and the proposed charter specifically. This access will increase the number of residents who understand the proposed changes and that understanding will, we believe, led to a favorable impression of the charter and votes to accept the charter.

an answer! i got an actual factual informed answer!!

thank you very much.

Seems to me, the "committee" bowed to BOCC pressure to remove the district-base representation, and yes I read the article stating Ms. Singer and other were "overwhelmed with calls and letters. Go ahead and believe that, then come talk to me. I have a nice bidge for sale.

To me, this was the only way to ensure equitable representation throughout the county. Now, we will be stuck with all the "urban" areas voting in the good old boys. How sad.

Silly me I actually thought this "committee" was going to have some back-bone. Oh well..........

To Jeanne Singer :

First, thank you for volunteering your time to undertake a relatively thankless task. I know you must have spent many hours away from your family while participating in this task force, so thanks for your effots.

Second, I noticed the change from five districts and two at-large positons to seven at-large positions. When it was realized that the district representation probably wasn't going to work out, did the task force consider recommending just five at-large positions, as we basically have now, instead of increasing it to seven? Why was it increased from what we have today?

Thanks.

The Charter Board did not put a tremendous amount of weight on the Commissioners' opinions relating to districts. By the time we met with the Commissioners on October 16, we had already heard from hundreds of citizens who were opposed to including any form of district representation in the Charter (inclluding many individuals from South County and the western part of the County). During that same time period, we only had a few individuals who expressed support for the district representation (and several of them were not in favor of the hybrid approach included in the draft but wanted seven districts). As part of our process in October, the Charter Board reviewed the distribution of the population throughout the County. As more than 60% of our population lives in the Hagerstown "urban" area, all five districts would have included a substantial number of residents in the Hagerstown area. Good luck selling your bridge.

The Board did consider providing for five at-large councilmembers. We decided to leave the number at seven at-large for several reasons. First, as districts did not seem to be an attractive option for many county residents, increasing the number of councilmembers seemed like a good way to increase the chance of representation in outlying areas. For instance, in the last election, if we had seven seats, a councilmember from South County would have been elected. Second, it takes a lot of work to run a county. The minimal incremental cost of adding two members seemed to be a cost-effective solution. After circulating the draft, we did receive positive feedback about increasing the number of seats.

Thank you for your efforts. I commented on the original draft and stated my concern in three areas.

First was the two at large members. I think that two at large members would sway voting on issues toward the urban interests. I now see that all members will be voted at large. A real concern to me.

Second issue I raised was the possibility of an independent member being elected. If this member left office there would be no party machine to propose a replacement. I now see that even if this person is from the D or R party the commissioners can select other than the three recommended replacements. Stacking the deck is assured. This should be a concern to all fair minded people.

Third is the inability of the voters to bring ALL issues to a citizens vote. Taxes, long term debt, and I would assume the salaries of these people, are not subject to the review of the voters. Why not let me hold your check book?

I also notice that there is no clearly stated provision for the voters to remove/recall an elected member.

Although a lot needs to be done to reform the current county government, this charter will not get my vote.

Thank you for your input.

You were one of the few individuals who expressed concern who electing council members at large. The overwhelming majority of responses was against district election.

We struggled with the process to replace an a non-party councilmember who vacates office. As they are not technically party members, there is no available mechanism to replace him or her with a member of the same party. The method of filling a vacancy is one of the areas that will see little change under charter home rule - the deck is no more stacked than it is now under the commissioner form of government.

While the budget as a whole will not be subject to referendum, long-term debt and the salaries of the councilmembers will be subject to referendum. In addition, all other local ordinances will be subject to referendum.

Maryland law does not allow for us to include a provision, to remove or recall an elected official. To the disappointment of many, in Maryland, the right of recall is limited to the next election.

I'm sorry that we do not have your support. I'm not sure that it would have been possible to draft a document to make everybody (or even any individual) completely satisfied. As a board, however, we believe that our proposal gives a much stronger voice to the residents of Washington County. While our voices under this charter may not be as strong as you would have hoped, they are certainly stronger than under the commissioner form of government.

Do you have any details concerning those that were against district representation? What area of the county do these people live. Was this taken into consideration.

It would seem to me that this could be a prime example of why district representation is needed. If the majority of those against districts were from within the city of Hagerstown we have a good example how the representation will go i.e. most elected from the urban area and little rural representation.

There were some from Hancock and many from South County. I have to admit that I was surprised by that - I anticipated that all opposed would live in Hagerstown but it was pretty evenly split. In fact, most of the few who were in favor of districts lived in the Hagerstown urban area.

Jeanne:

How would the proposed form of charter govt for Washington County deal with a situation similar to the caps on the real estate assessments? The situation of the very high 10% annual cap a couple of years ago needed a big push from our state delegates to get this reduced to 5% because our county comissioners did absolutely nothing about this excessive tax rate even though this was a big concern for county residents. Would we as citizens have any power to force issues like this to a vote or would we remain relatively at the mercy of the seven new council members?

I think the charter as a whole seems good in many ways, but I would be very disappointed if we changed to a system that would leave us with bad situations such as the max assessment caps that we would still have in place if the commissioners were the last word on it. Thanks.

The cap on real estate assessment remains an issue for the delegation. A council under Charter does not have the authority to revise.

Jeanne

Patton, if you would have read the first draft you would know that the districts, per State Law, must be roughly equal in size, and thus using a district approach would only serve to create 5 equal districts based on population, NOT create districts to represent specific geographical areas within the County, that would "assure" equal countywide representation.

To that affect and Hagerman's comments, of rpresentation being "centralized", with districts removed, it would be beneficial to note that the current BOCC reside in the following areas

Smithsburg/Cavetown
Cearfoss/Maugansville
Clearspring?Indian Springs
Hagerstown/Halfway
hagerstown/Leitersburg

That being said, I was at numerous meetings where the draft was presented, and heard many of the same comments from residents opposed to district representation, some from areas that realized the districts were not going to drawn up the way they had envisioned and by others who felt this would a politically polarizing form of government to change to.

I believe the issue of havign 7 vs. 5 members was left in an attempt to satsify both sides of that issue, where there would not be district, but there would be additional seats to give some areas (south county)O greater chance at getting someone from that area elected.

I will say it again, regardless of which form of govt the County operates under, neither will address the responsibility for the County elected body to govern in acountywide thought process. This will only be accomplished if county elected leaders have develop policies that direct us to do so. This is why I attend 2 town council meetings each month, look at the budget discretionary funding on a geographic level, scheduling meetings with each of our schools and fire and rescue companies, so that I can gain a better understanding of our needs beyond our urban fringes. I know full well what our needs are in the Hagerstown area, and know what important role we play at the county level in moving the city forward must be, but we need ot have this same level of understanding countywide, and the reality is that this may not be the case, not by conscious decision but by the mere fact much of what we deliberate on is done and for the more urban area(s). This is why I make it a point to respond to all emails in a timely manner and direct citizen concerns to appropriate staff for follow up to ensure residents wherever they may be in this County that they are represented as equal as I can possibly make it.

Anyway, I know that my name is not on the "supporter" list on the charter website, and would offer the following copy of the response I sent when asked to be included:


Following are the remaining comments that I feel should be addressed in supporting the Charter as proposed. This does not however, mean I do not support the Charter form of government, but rather, simply, that there should be some immediate avenue upon adoption of a charter, if the public approves it via the upcoming vote, that would allow for additional changes to address these types of outstanding comments that anyone may have with the current document.

Page 6

Section 303 ( Define “contemporaneously broadcast”?

Section 303 (e) Won’t the Council be able to change the Charter via due process of its members, and if so, how can they not be allowed to do so in conflict with what is initially adopted?

Page 7

Section 304 (d) What will the additional cost to the budget of such publication of every change be?

Section 304 (e) If a quorum is present why can’t a majority of those present enact a law? What if there are 3 vacancies at some period, and all have to be in favor?

Section 304 (f) Does the 65 day rule remove tabling, and how will this affect such large items for consideration that sometimes require more time and review like planning and zoning issues? How long does the proposed void period last?

Section 305 ( Why must the emergency law terminate at 6 months?
What if the law is needed for protection, to last longer than 6 months?

Section 305 © What if the law is a matter of emergency and only a quorum could accomplish this task?

Page 8

Section 307 (a) I do not agree “iv” or “v” should not be allowed for referendum.

Page 11

Section 509 ( Does this apply to ALL County debt or just general or just tax supported?

Page 13

Section 713 © Is there any obligation for the Council to consider these recommendations?

General Comment

As stated in my editorial and public comments. I am not certain that adding members for the sake of greater representation countywide will accomplish that task, just as equal districts would also not have done so. As this County is expected to grow by more than 30,000 over the next 20 years, it is also expected that more than 80% of that growth will occur within the Hagerstown Urban Growth Area. This will likely produce even greater potential in the future that a majority of elected officials will come from this area, and thus cause an even greater interest of such individuals to focus county resources and attention in this area. This will also mean greater potential than under a Charter form of government that this body increased in size and having increased focus on this area will drive even greater demand for resources and decisions to benefit this area in particular, and possibly to the detriment of those areas that will have even less of a voice as their individual delegation members that hold some greater power now, will no longer have such in the future. Again, not saying it goes toward my argument for or against charter, merely pointing out the very real possibilities that this decision the public is making, will make.

My argument has and will continue to be that in order for representation to be more equally spread across the County we need to change the role in which the elected County body, under whatever form, views and carries out its duties for the benefit of all county citizens.

I am not certain adding or not adding my name to this cause will make any difference, as I have witnessed in my brief public life that simply having recognized people backing a local issue does not generally sway public sentiment, and at times has been counterproductive in gaining public support.