FREDERICK COUNTY STILL TALKING TRASH

George Wenschhof

Frederick County executive Jan Gardner has appointed a solid waste committee and over the next 18 months they will come up with recommendations to present to the executive and council on how best to handle the disposal of solid waste.

This is hardly a new issue. This recent attempt at moving toward a solution comes after Jan’s steadfast endorsement of the effort to build an Incinerator went down in flames.

The Waste-To-Energy (Incinerator) solution had been arrived at after several years of study and a presentation given by Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority (NMWDA).

It has now been over seven years since Jan Gardner wrote a column on my Blog FrederickPolitics.com entitled“Talking Trash”.

That column published on July 16, 2008 was the first of four columns she would write promoting the building of an Incinerator to handle the disposal of solid waste in Frederick County, Maryland.

She became president of the board of county commissioners after Republican David Gray, relinquished the gavel.

Kai Hagen, a fellow Democrat disagreed with Jan’s insistence on building the costly incinerator and I would also publish columns from him at the same time where he put forward reasons why the county should not participate in building the incinerator.

I had given them both the opportunity to write, in detail, their positions on how the county should handle the disposal of solid waste.

Kai would never garner two other votes on the five member board to win his argument and Jan would go on to secure the votes on the board to move forward to building the incinerator in what was billed as a waste-to-energy solution to county solid waste disposal.

Later, Jan would announce on my online video program All Things Political she would not run for reelection in the 2010 election.

Kai would run for reelection and recruit two other Democrats who were opponents to the building of the incinerator, Ellis Burruss and Janet Wiles. They would run as a team for county commissioner rallying supporters with “No Incinerator” signs appearing throughout the county. Although they were right in opposing the building of an incinerator, they would all lose.

In spite of his best efforts, Kai had been unable to put forward an alternative that resonated or connected with enough voters.

In her first column I published, Jan wrote “Frederick County has limited remaining landfill space. If all our community’s waste was sent to the landfill for disposal, the capacity of the landfill would be fully exhausted within three years. In an effort to preserve our landfill space, the commissioners are currently transferring and shipping the majority of our solid waste to a mega-landfill in Virginia. This option has become rapidly more expensive as the cost of fuel has increased. The cost per ton to ship our waste to Virginia has increased from $58/ton to $74/ton over a six-month period solely due to fuel surcharge increases. While transferring our trash to Virginia preserves local landfill space, the cost and environmental impacts associated with this option clearly makes it our worst choice and a poor long-term solution. Transferring our waste to an out-of-state mega landfill has always been considered an interim solution rather than a long-term solution. Shifting our waste burden to another community also raises ethical questions.”

Yet, this is exactly what Frederick County has been doing over the past seven plus years.

So, once again a study is underway.  This time Jan has appointed many of those who had opposed the incinerator and named John Daniels to chair the committee. I interviewed John recently.  I found him to fully aware of what he had gotten himself into and fully capable of leading this committee’s efforts to find a reasonable solution to the county’s disposal of solid waste.

Caroline Eader, another activist who opposed the building of an incinerator and who became a strong advocate for “Zero Waste” practices is concerned with continued involvement by NMWDA in the process.

I spoke with Caroline over the phone and asked her to weigh in with her thoughts of this effort being undertaken.  She responded with the following in an email to me.

“We all should thank the citizens on the Steering Committee who are volunteering their time, and acting as the conduit for public thoughts and opinions.

Yet, it is disappointing this committee was only provided a list of 3 engineering firms from which to choose.  Geosyntec’s original proposal focused on “conversion technologies” rather than all the alternatives included on the “What’s Next” webpage.  Let’s hope the Steering Committee can work around Geosyntec’s lack of experience and knowledge on the alternatives available, including the application of Zero Waste principals, concepts and actions.

But the question is why is the County using ~$154,000 of the “credit” it has with the NMWDA for citizens to teach Geosyntech the basics about the alternatives available?  And the bigger question is why did the County accept a $250,000 credit (upon cancellation of the incinerator contract) to use for future services from the NMWDA instead of receiving the money to pay for a study conducted by someone of its choosing?  (Isn’t that like getting a gift card from a store you don’t want to shop?)

Until the NMWDA is revamped (which S.B. 509 would done as presented last session) Frederick County should cease its membership with this quasi-governmental agency that misled and misrepresented the financial and contractual terms of its proposed incinerator for Frederick and Carroll Counties.

Additionally, it’s a waste for Frederick County not to proceed with what it can do now to increase its diversion rate.  Just as the County can raise or lower the tipping fees at the landfill, it has the ability to require anyone using its landfill to provide services in a tiered-pricing system. This has been proven to increase diversion rates and in doing so, the County can give this economic opportunity back to the local haulers rather than use the NMWDA to contract with a large out-of-state entity.  There’s no need to wait 18 months.”

Daniels was aware of Caroline’s concerns and was confident the committee had independence to determine consultants used.

He explained to me during the first phase the committee and consultant would be conducting outreach from the community through a series of 5 public meetings held throughout the county which he hoped would be completed in March of 2016.

The second phase would include analysis of options and their costs.  Hopefully, options and their financial costs would be eventually reduced to 3-4 options that would be sent to the county executive and council.  He is hopeful the entire process would be completed by March of 2017.

John said the committee would be focused on options that are financially viable, environmentally sound and socially acceptable.

He added they were looking for a longer term (50 year) solution and not short term solutions.

At the end of my interview with John, he said “there is no single system or magic bullet… that it will likely be a combination of approaches”.

It is good to see Gardner has appointed many talented people with interest in this field to this committee and to have someone of Daniel’s capabilities chairing it.

However, Caroline Eader is correct; there is no need to take 18 months to begin taking action and John Daniels is correct, there is no magic bullet.

Reaching out to the community for input is admirable.  But to spend money on a consultant to do this when only a handful of community activists will attend is a waste of time and money.

The appointed committee members are extremely knowledgeable and if money is going to be spent to solicit solutions, it would make more sense to spend it on professionals in this field.

Moving to a three tier bin system for collection is easy and I saw this effectively utilized on the west coast where residents were billed by the size of the bin.

There also remains a need to examine expansion of the current landfill or explore another suitable location.  When I spent time on the west coast several years ago, even the communities who had embraced and were successfully implementing zero waste methods, had landfills to handle a small residual of the waste.

Elected officials have always feared making a decision on where to locate a jail and where to locate a landfill because no one wants it in their back yard.  It was this fear of examining landfill possibilities that in part, fueled the effort to build an incinerator.  However, where to build the incinerator also became a contentious issue.

Governing and making decisions is not easy, but it is past time for Frederick county elected officials to make decisions on how to manage the disposal of solid waste.

Hopefully, the committee will speed up the 18 month process they are currently undertaking.

It is not as though the options are not known; it is the act of making a decision that is lacking.

John Daniels is right, there is no magic bullet and it will take a combination of options.

Let’s get it done.

Stay tuned.

Move The Taney Bust

George Wenschhof

It is past time to remove the Roger Brooke Taney Bust from the grounds of city hall in Frederick, Maryland.

On Thursday, the mayor and board of aldermen will hold a public meeting and listed at the end of the agenda is a discussion on the removal of the Taney Bust.

“Who is Taney”, you ask?

A former lawyer in Frederick, he shared his law office with his brother-in-law Frances Scott Key who would become famous for his composition of “The Star Spangled Banner”.

Taney would also become famous for serving on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, it was his writing of the majority (7-2) opinion of the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford case that provides overwhelming weight for the removal of his Bust from the grounds of city hall.

Scott had traveled with his Master and lived in free territories before returning to a slave state.  After the death of his Master, he sued for his freedom beginning in 1847.

Ten years later, after the case had reached the U.S. Supreme Court, Taney would write in the majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it.”

Addressing the language in the Declaration of Independence that says, “all men are created equal,” Taney said “it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration.”

Historians widely agree this decision contributed to the election of Abraham Lincoln as president in 1860 and the start of the Civil War in 1861.

This ill advised decision was repealed with the passage of the 13th and 14th amendments to the U.S. constitution.

It should not be a surprise that many people, especially African Americans are not happy to see this Taney Bust adorn the grounds of city hall in Frederick, Maryland.

Located in a prominent location in front of the entrance to city hall, visitors must walk past the Bust when entering the building.

The Bust was placed in its current position when the building was the Frederick County court house.

The discussion to move the Taney Bust is a not new to city hall officials.  Back in 2007, local African American professional E. Kevin Lollar began an effort that included other community activists and lawyers Willie Mahone and Barry Kissin. On 1-14-2008, Frederick NAACP president Guy Djoken wrote this column published on my Blog FrederickPolitics.com

Much public discussion followed over 2 years with the resulting compromise being a plaque containing a short explanation placed next to the Taney Bust in 2009.

Perhaps, it was the recent tragedy that took place in a Charleston, South Carolina church and the subsequent action by the S. Carolina state legislature to finally remove the Confederate Flag from the grounds of their capitol that led to this latest attempt to remove the Bust.

Regardless of the cause for the latest impetus to remove the Taney Bust from the grounds of city hall, it is past time to do so.

Sadly over the weekend, the Taney Bust was vandalized by pouring red paint over it.

Also, this past weekend, the public notice of a planned KKK rally in nearby Braddock Heights reminds us that racism continues to exist and must be countered when it attempts to rise.

Many thanks to the close to 100 people who attended, on a Saturday evening, a peaceful candle-lit counter-rally in Braddock Heights organized by Kerri Eiker.  There was no reported sighting of the white robed individuals who had advertised cross burnings. Credit should go to these concerned citizens who made it known that racism and hate is not acceptable in Frederick County.

For those who argue “You cannot change history”, moving the Taney Bust from the grounds of city hall or taking down a Confederate Flag flying on the grounds of a state capitol is not changing history.

Rather, it is showing respect to those who were negatively impacted by history that we as a nation should not be proud of.

The Confederate Flag battle or otherwise, can be viewed in museums across the country and today is easily seen online.

In The City of Frederick there remains a home where Taney spent some of his time and is now a museum.  Perhaps, these grounds are the appropriate location to place the Bust and its companion plaque. There is also a Historical Society where the Bust could be moved.

When I posted on my Facebook page I intended to write a column on this issue, it solicited many comments.

The comment placed by Vivian Campbell Combs “Move it to his house…or the library, or museum…where people can see it, if they want to…not because they have to” made the most sense.

One should not be required to pass by the Taney Bust when they visit city hall.

Today, city officials should not look for legal means to provide them cover from taking action to remove the Bust.  They should just take action to do so.

Interestingly, back around 1920, way before the rise of the Hitler regime in Germany, a road in the city was named Swastika Road.  In 1960, the mayor and board of The City of Frederick, after much debate about how the name of the road was not reflective of the horrific Hitler regime and how you cannot change history, changed the name of the road.

On Thursday, city officials should vote to move the Taney Bust.

Stay tuned.

SALE OF CITIZENS/MONTEVUE HIGHLIGHTS FREDERICK COUNTY POLITICAL FEUD

George Wenschhof

The election of Jan Gardner(D) as the first county executive of Frederick County, Maryland has perpetuated the decades long battle between two factions who primarily differ on how best to manage growth.

Gardner’s actions to date have been a reversal of actions taken by the previous board of county commissioners’ president Blaine Young(R) and Company.  Young and Company expanded the differences between the two factions from growth management to include the level of education funding and a desire to privatize government services which I described in a previous column entitled Blaine and Co. bad for Frederick County.

The latest move by Gardner is her threat to use eminent domain to void the contract of the business sale of the services being provided at Citizens and Montevue senior assisted care centers owned by the county government.

For Frederick County residents, it is a modern day real life portrayal of the movie “Groundhog Day”.

This perpetual back and forth battle has also caught the eye of many outsiders and political leaders in Annapolis.  The running joke “Is there something in their water?” never seems to get old as it applies no matter who wins.

Following Jan’s convincing of the council to reopen the Monrovia Town Center development approval, stacking committees with her appointees (a common practice by the winner), reversing the ill advised “English Only” ordinance and ethics committee decisions, she has now turned her sights on undoing the sale of the “business only” interest of the Citizen and Montevue senior assisted care centers.

She enjoys the support of a 4-3 vote from the council by ensuring Republican Bud Otis would become the president after the three Democrats on the council voted for him over Republican Billy Shreve.  Since then, Jan has received Otis’s vote with the 3 Democrats on every issue she presents to the council.

Republican council members Kirby Delauter and Billy Shreve, who were part of the previous board of county commissioners referred by me as Blaine and Company, enjoyed a board with a sure 4-1 vote on every issue presented by Blaine.  They are exasperated because they are now a minority on the council.

Crying foul at every move made by Gardner and complaining she is only focused on undoing everything their board did, Shreve and Delauter seem to forget they spent their 4 years in office undoing everything Gardner and her “Dream Team” had done in the previous administration. Jan coined the name “Dream Team” when she and fellow Democrat Kai Hagen ran with and won with Republicans David Gray and John “Lennie” Thompson in the 2006 election.

The sale of the Citizens/Montevue business interest was another of the actions by Blaine Young, while enjoying a 4-1 majority on the board that illustrates his arrogance and persistence in doing what he wanted during his administration, even if it was ill advised.

Blaine began his obsession of selling the county owned land, building and services by first disbanding their board of directors, firing the director and sending a threatening letter to city officials.  A letter I questioned at the time whether it had board approval in a column.  In order to sell the land, subdivision was required and needed city approval.

I also pointed out in another column, there was legal action underway pertaining to deed restrictions and the state had provided a $200,000 loan that meant the state board of public works needed to approve the sale.

I opined it would be best to let the legal issues be decided before approving any sale.  In a meeting, the board of public works agreed.

Stymied, a frustrated Young intent on selling the facilities, received legal advice he could sell the business only interest of the centers with the option on the sale of the land and buildings dependent upon court decisions.

This brings us to present day where Gardner, who made it known during her campaign for county executive she opposed the sale of the facilities.

She has withheld questionable payments negotiated by Young from the county to the Buyer and is undergoing mediation in an attempt to dissolve the contract.

The contract agreed to by Blaine and Company is a poor one for the county and should be voided.  Decisions by the court still have not been made and no action to sell any interest in the centers should have been done by the previous board.

Speculation on the future of the long serving county attorney is rampant because he has provided opinions on both sides of this and other issues over the years, depending upon who was in power.  His credibility questioned, some believe resignation is the best option.

Let’s hope legal rulings will be issued soon and mediation will result in the voiding of this ill advised agreement.  The use of eminent domain to recapture a “business interest” is a stretch and is also not advisable.  It is used to claim land such as property for an airport expansion.  But in this case, the land has not been transferred so there is no need to recapture by use of eminent domain.

Optimistically, the county will retain the business interest, land and buildings. Afterward, a committee should be appointed by Gardner and confirmed by the council to review management options to include the reappointment of a board of directors and to develop financial plans for the future of the Citizens/Montevue senior assisted living centers.

Stay tuned.

JURY STILL OUT ON FREDERICK COUNTY CHARTER

George Wenschhof

Not much has changed in Frederick County, Maryland politics since the much ballyhooed vote to implement charter government took place in the 2014 election.

The back and forth positions on growth that have dominated county politics for decades continues with the election of Jan Gardner(D) as county executive.

She moved quickly to establish her “Dream Team 2” when she convinced the three Democrats on the council to support Republican Bud Otis(R) for president.  This kept growth adversary councilmember Billy Shreve(R) from winning the president of the council, even though there are 4 Republicans on the 7 member council.

Since being elected president of the council, Otis has given Gardner the fourth vote whenever it was needed.

In the 2008 election Gardner and fellow Democrat Kai Hagen would run for election with Republican “no-growth” candidates John “Lenny” Thompson and David Gray.  They would win 4 of the 5 slots on the board of commissioners and label themselves the “Dream Team”.

After, going through a comprehensive plan update, supported by their appointees on the Planning Commission, a number of properties were down zoned, leading to public outcry on protection of property rights.

This lead to the election of Blaine Young(R) and company (current council members Billy Shreve and Kirby Delauter were part of the “company”) who quickly went about appointing their people to board and commissions who would support their positions on growth.

Not surprisingly, a comprehensive plan and zoning update took place and zoning was restored to many of the properties that had been down zoned from the Gardner led board.

Guess what?  Gardner as county executive has appointed her people to boards and commissions and a comprehensive plan and zoning update will take place yet again.

But Gardner did not wait for all of this to play out before influencing the council action on the controversial approval under the former board of commissioners of the Monrovia Town Center.

The approval of this development has been at the center of this political pendulum swing over growth for the last decade.

A law suit filed against the Gardner board by the developer for their down zoning the property was set aside after the Young board reinstated their zoning and approval was granted.

Now the council has used a vague opinion letter issued by a local Judge on the inclusion in the record of a questionable letter presented by local Frederick Area Committee for Transportation (FACT) as justification to reopen the entire review of the development.

No effort was made by the council to ask the Judge to clarify what he intended in his opinion letter.

Instead, action was taken to decide whether to reopen development review.  The 4-3 decision to “start-over” a foregone conclusion with Gardner’s “Dream Team 2” in place in the council.

With recent appointments to the Planning Commission by Gardner, one can anticipate the recommendation on this development will be a “No”, followed by a 4-3 vote by the council to deny approval.

With the county roller coaster actions on growth continuing, legal action by the developer is likely to come.

Legal action is also pending on Gardner refusing to make the county payments under the questionable contract made by the Young board for the sale of the county owned senior citizen services.

Also undertaken during the first year of charter government was the reversal of the ill advised “English Only” ordinance passed by the Young led board.

Interestingly, the county attorney has argued the positions taken by the politicos on both sides of these issues over the years.  Not, an easy task and he is still there.

Speaking of staff, this is one of the biggest problems facing the county council as charter has been implemented.  The council is separate from the executive yet their staff is provided by the executive.

Gardner has settled into the executive role and has treated the council similar to how she worked with the board of county commissioners when she was president.

However the council already experiencing image issues, should move to establish their own entity and organizational structure, breaking away from the executive and the influence exerted by the executive and her staff.

In addition, for the same reason, the council needs an independent website.

In a conversation with vice chair of the council M.C. Keegan-Ayer, who is arguably the most qualified member of the council, she acknowledged this was an issue and expressed her frustration with the lack of funds provided to the council by the previous Young led board.

Already circulating in the rumor mill among progressive Democrats is Blaine Young and Company will work to have voters reject charter, bring back the board of county commissioner form of government and run for office.

Not a likely scenario, but it illustrates the dislike members of these two political factions surrounding growth have toward each other.

In addition to providing good government services, hopefully what is done during this first charter term will be to focus on the split of council staff from executive staff.  This will establish a true separation of powers called for by the charter.

A compilation of issues, such as council salary, council input on the budget and all council members elected by districts should also be discussed with voters over the next couple of years so constructive changes to the charter can be voted on.

Including, what may be the most important change, of having the county executive hired by the council instead of being elected.  This is known as the west coast charter model.

This would ensure the vision by the elected council is implemented by the executive.

Stay tuned.