About a dozen Montgomery County residents spoke out on a proposed charter amendment that would reduce the number of councilmembers needed to raise taxes and another that would limit the county executive’s term down from the current three to two.
On Tuesday, the council held public hearings on whether to require a two-thirds majority of support for action certain concerning budget and tax revenue votes. That would mean if a budgetary proposal had the support of eight of the 11 members, it would be enacted.
Currently, the council must gain unanimous support before the change would pass. The proposed change was recommended by county’s charter review commission.
County Chief Administrative Officer Rich Madaleno and County Executive Marc Elrich support this as it would bring this requirement in line with other council votes, making two-thirds “the standard,” Madaleno said.
Resident Amy Waychoff testified in opposition, saying it would enable the council to raise taxes more easily. “It’s time to stop using the taxpayers as an ATM,” she said.
“This proposal is about tax increases. There is no other reason,” said Robin Ficker, who has run for multiple county and state positions. “We need to continue to have a unanimous vote.”
Resident George Hernandez called tax increases “a threat to long term” economic success of the county and urged councilmembers to stick with the unanimous requirement.
Jim Michaels, chair of the county’s charter review commission, said he favored the proposal so that budgetary changes cannot come down to a one-member veto when 10 other councilmembers agree. Michaels said he was speaking Tuesday for himself and not as a representative of the commission.
The other charter change concerns limiting the county executive’s job to two terms rather than the current three. County councilmembers are limited to two.
This change was requested by the Committee for Better Government, which collected signatures to get it on the ballot. Currently, the Board of Elections is checking the signatures to see if the group had gathered the required 10,000 signatures.
Madaleno called the change in term limits “destabilizing to the executive branch.” During the executive’s second term, that person would be considered “a lame duck,” and councilmembers may choose not to approve that executive’s suggestions and appointments.
Madaleno, like several others who spoke during the public hearing, called this proposal a sour grapes effort against Executive Marc Elrich.
When searching for the organization’s website online, it lists “Marc Elrich – Committee for Better Government.”
Waychoff said she supported the reduction. “I believe there are many benefits to term limits,” she said. According to her, incumbents win 90% of the time.
“This will give voters more choices,” and fall in line with term limits for the president of the United States and the governor of Maryland, she said.
Laurie Halverson, who sits on the county GOP Executive Board Member and Central Committee, said a two-term limit would give voters a greater voice, agreeing that it is very hard to beat incumbents.
Samuel Statland, who was a member of the county’s redistricting committee, called the proposal “this Republican amendment,” adding it was “obviously political.”
Jake Didinsky called the proposal “ridiculous,” noting that the committee only needed to get signatures from 2% of county voters, which is mandated by the state. He accused those who signed the committee’s petition of probably never reading the county charter.
“We have term limits. This is a targeted approach,” he said, adding if the group was serious, it would request that the reduction in terms apply to whomever comes after Elrich.
Cheryl Gannon of Silver Spring called the proposed change “a private grudge.” She suggested that residents who don’t support Elrich work to recall him instead.
MCM spoke with Reardon Sullivan, chair of the Committee for Better Government who previously ran for executive against Elrich, after the public hearing. He disputed indirect claims that David Blair, who unsuccessfully ran against Elrich twice, was behind the effort.
Blair isn’t a contributor to the committee, Sullivan said. “That’s just noisy propaganda.”
He said the top three funders include himself, James Montgomery Gingery of Gingery Development Group and Charles Nulsen III of Washington Property Company.
The council is expected to discuss these charter change amendments at its July 23 meeting and decide whether or not to introduce them.
