Palace Intrigue in Columbia?

Watching the Squirrels of Greater Mischievousness sprint across Faulkner Ridge this morning.   So much motion; yet what purpose is being served?

A recent Howard County Times letter to the editor with the title, “Gag effort toward Alan Klein cannot be ‘anonymous’” distracted me from my rodent-focused observations.  The third paragraph, in particular, deserves a bit of attention. 

Stepping back for a moment, a re-cap of the specific allegations can be found here: 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/howard/columbia/ph-ho-cf-ca-ethics-0108-20150107-story.html.

Now, returning to the letter, the author claims that this action against Mr. Klein is an “effort to disenfranchise his constituents.”  Given the scope of the Columbia Association’s authority, and the process whereby the Board Members are elected, this assertion, even if it had an ounce of merit, is either a finely crafted piece of satire or a shockingly egregious example of hyperbole.

From my perspective, which is admittedly that of an outsider, it appears as though the Board is undertaking a procedure designed to ensure the integrity of the Columbia Association in general and the Board, as the governing body, specifically.  Further, it seems as though they are investigating this matter in the proper, legally prescribed manner.  I would think Columbia residents, particularly those who dwell in Harper’s Choice, would respect a “by the book” approach in the handling of this complaint.

The author of the letter states that this is a “staff-instigated” effort.  Oh?  So then he knows the identity of the individual who filed the complaint?  I thought he was concerned about the anonymity of the complainant.  If he doesn’t possess this information, it would appear that he is making a fairly grand leap to the conclusion that this is some sort of staff conspiracy.  Has palace intrigue become the parlor game of choice at the Wincopin HQ?  

The author, of course, is free to exercise his First Amendment rights.  It is my belief that his not-so-subtle depiction of Board Members as so many CA staff puppets is unfair, ill-founded and disrespectful.  It is arguments such as this that undermine confidence in the work of the Columbia Association.  That is the pathway to estrangement, disillusion, and ultimately the sort of disenfranchisement that he claims to working against.

I look forward to the resolution of the Klein matter, although I am certain the debate will merely take another form, because why resolve something when one can continue running about in circles, chasing after elusive acorns.       

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

The Wincopin Steamroller

The deal went down last night. 

Mr. Reg Avery sits, officially, as the Columbia Association Representative from Oakland Mills. 

The Code of Ethics provision that fueled the controversy [about a Board Member not being able to be a candidate for public office while serving as a CA Representative] was changed to limit the applicability to a “Board Member sworn into public office.”  It is noteworthy that the new Harper’s Choice CA Rep, Alan Klein, pushed to strike the original, apparently controversial, language from that provision entirely but his motion was defeated by a 5 – 4 margin, with the minority position held by the three new Board Members and Ms. McCord. Mr. Swatek abstained. 

So Mr. Swatek suggested amending the language to cover a CA Board Member when he or she actually assumes office.  His motion passed by an 8 – 2 majority, with Mr. O’Connor and Mr. Schwind in the minority.

There were some hard truths spoken and tough questions asked.  One of the Board Members in the aforementioned two-person minority, joining the discussion via telephone, wondered aloud if some future Board Member, seeking elective office, might jeopardize the Association’s 501(c)(4) status. Bill Woodcock, graciously congratulating Mr. Avery on his election, also raised concerns about the possible future implications of allowing Board Members to be candidates for office simultaneously.

Meanwhile, there was a heated debate occurring directly behind my seat.  The janitorial service was just outside the door of the meeting room, making the sounds one would expect of a cleaning crew…a bit annoying but sporadic…and not 120 decibels.  A former CA Representative sitting in the audience wanted the glass door to be closed, to help shut out the noise.  Another person (according to my sources, a CA employee) insisted that the door stay open, in keeping with the spirit of an “open” (read: not closed) meeting.  So voices were raised as tempers flared.

Frankly, their debate made as much sense as anything else last night.  Many of the arguments in favor of seating Mr. Avery or revising the Code of Ethics had much to do with the circumstances surrounding the election of a specific individual….and not the application of a specific policy.  Remember the whole, “a government of laws and not men” philosophy? Not many people did in the Columbia Association Board room last night.  One gets the feeling that – had a candidate with a perspective different from theirs been elected – some members of the audience who supported seating Mr. Avery without the need for a waiver and/or the Swatek Amendment - would have instead pushed for a rigorous adherence to the existing policy. 

Am I saying there was a certain paucity of intellectual honesty and an abundance of disingenuousness in the room? Absolutely.

Oh yes, and Mr. Stack is going to be the Chair for the first six months of the year, and Mr. Swatek will assume the Chair for the second six months.  This came following a 5-5 split on the election of the Board Chair.  I left before this vote occurred, but my understanding is that there were no surprises regarding the composition of the two voting blocs.

I have a feeling we will see the same coalitions emerge on other issues over the course of the next 12 months.  The calendar says 365 days, but it will seem longer.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.