I am writing in response to David Reel’s opinion piece in the September 25th Spy.  I understand that appropriately the Spy leaves the content of the writer’s byline to the writer. It would be helpful if David Reel would not be so shy about his Republican Party bona fides as the past Chairman of the Talbot County Republican Central Committee.

This OpEd is characteristic of what I call the post 2016 American Enterprise sandwich.  The American Enterprise Institute is the longtime conservative redoubt that has employed the likes of Newt Gingrich and Dinesh D’Souza. 

In off year elections, the party not in the White House characteristically does very, very well.  In 2016, the Republican Party let their extreme Donald Trump flag fly with disappointing results including the continuing speaker of the house fiasco and legislative stalemate because of the Republican Party’s slimmest of majorities. 

The American Enterprise sandwich is a way for the conservative fringe to further itself with the veneer of non-combative moderation.  The sandwich opens with a seemingly nonpartisan theme, in this case challenges and opportunities for Democrats and Republicans in addressing the African American electorate.  

The meat follows with opinion and statistics which are negative for the Democratic Party. The final section contains platitudes about listening to the electorate.

Any piece dealing with how the Republican Party relates to the African American electorate that does not include the nationwide voter suppression efforts targeting that community cannot be taken seriously.

In the case of David Reel’s OpEd, it is not only in the style of the American Enterprise sandwich, but all the opinion is from American Enterprise staff and all the data is from American Enterprise surveys.

Be on the look out for this type of opinion piece and remember that Donald Trump is overwhelmingly favored to be the presidential candidate for the Republican Party in 2024.  Donald Trump is an existential threat to our democracy and any attempts to distract from that reality should be ignored.

Holly Wright
Talbot County

In its latest and arguably most outrageous effort to insulate the Lakeside project from any County oversight, Talbot County is directly defying the Maryland Department of Environment.  MDE instructed the County to prepare a new Sewer Service Map for Trappe “with the corrected classifications for all of the parcels within the Town of Trappe including the Lakeside development.”  As the lawyers say, “emphasis supplied.”

In response to that directive, the County introduced Resolution 348 (“R348”) to which is attached the new map.  After public hearings and a thoughtful review by the Planning Commission (slated for this Wednesday, October 4th) and action by the Council, this document is supposed to resolve the Lakeside fracas at last.  The map IS ready for review.  However, R348 was carefully drafted explicitly to omit Lakeside entirely from the Planning Commission’s review.  That’s right.  Omit Lakeside—even though it is the central issue, and MDE’s April 24th directive said explicitly “with the corrected classifications for all of the parcels within the Town of Trappe including the Lakeside development.”

As things stand, MDE might not even see this bald defiance for a month, as the County has not sent the proposed Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan (CWSP) amendment to MDE in advance for review as it is supposed to do.  It is apparently the County’s hope and intention that the faulty Resolution will have gone through the entire County review process—PWAB comment, Planning Commission public hearing, evaluation and vote for consistency with the Comp Plan, and Council public hearing and adoption—without anyone noticing.  Maybe at that point MDE will just accept the outcome and, once again, the hapless Talbot citizens will have been bamboozled.  

And the defiance is directed not at MDE alone.  The Planning Commissioners, who in 2020 were dramatically misled by falsehoods when the original Lakeside map was presented, are being abused here.  And most fundamentally, the citizens of Talbot County are harmed.  If the Planning Commission is forced to accept R348’s improper framing of the “review” of the Trappe sewer map—look at everything except Lakeside—then it might well find the plan “consistent,” and Lakeside would proceed undisturbed.  (And if a jury had tried _____ and been prohibited from considering _____, he’d not have been found guilty, either.)

TIP is doing all it can to keep this debacle from happening, and welcomes the efforts of others.  The Planning Commission should not review R348 as it is now drafted; to do so is to abandon its responsibility to citizens and its duty to the State legislature, who delegated to it alone (not the Council) the task of evaluating land use plans for consistency with the County Comp Plan.  R348 should be withdrawn before the Planning Commission takes it up.  If it is somehow forced upon them, Commissioners should find it “inconsistent” because it asks them to ignore their legal responsibilities to do a proper review,

Unless someone on the Council wants to claim the mantle, TIP lays responsibility for this disgraceful maneuver at the feet of our County Attorney, who from TIP’s point of view has done his utmost to protect and advance Lakeside’s interests for three years.  It was the County Attorney who crafted the language of R348 once the Council gave direction that a stand-alone resolution be prepared.  This is the third attempt to somehow react to MDE’s directive without the matter going before the Planning Commission for a proper review.  (The first was an effort to get MDE to simply accept a “substitute map” administratively; the second was an attempt to bury the issues within a 200-page update of the CWSP that Lakeside’s engineer, Rauch, Inc. has been contracted to prepare.)

It’s all pretty outrageous, and while the County dallies with MDE and the Planning Commission, Lakeside marches on. TIP learned this week that a new plat was just recorded for another 180 lots, Lakeside Phase 1D.  (A State official signed that plat, certifying that it is consistent with the County CWSP.  TIP believes that was incorrect; expect the excuse of “a misunderstanding.”)

Former County Attorney Mike Pullen wrote to the Planning Commission on Wednesday explain the problems with R348 (view here) supplementing  TIP’s letter on point (here).  TIP also obtained a formal legal opinion on this from its Baltimore attorneys, which arrived yesterday (view here).

Meanwhile, on Wednesday TIP submitted to the Planning Commission its comment letter demonstrating the many reasons why Lakeside is inconsistent with our Comp Plan (view here).  That will be relevant only when the Council and/or the County Attorney permits the Planning Commission to do what MDE ordered: review the map for corrections “to all parcels…including Lakeside.”

Dan Watson
The Talbot Integrity Project

Watching the Baltimore Orioles play in the 1960s and 1970s was a pure athletic delight. One person stood out despite the presence of other stars.

Brooks Robinson, who died yesterday at 86, played third base like no other. Though slow afoot, he displayed incredible agility and reflexes that enabled him to scoop up ground balls and throw runners out in incomparable fashion.

His unparalleled magnificence filled Memorial Stadium with shrieks of glee and gasps of disbelief. His universal acclaim constantly drew modest “aw shucks”reactions from the Little Rock, Ark. native.

Surrounded by Orioles stars like Frank Robinson, Jim Palmer and Dave McNally, “Brooksie,” as he was affectionately called, provided spectators with their own highlight reels. Could anyone else perform the miracles he did at third base?

No. He was an All-Star for 18 years and first-round entry in the baseball Hall of Fame.

Like the Baltimore Colts’ great quarterback, Johnny Unitas, Robinson became a beloved figure in his adopted city of Baltimore. Both were friendly and approachable.

Today’s version of Major League Baseball lacks a genuine player and gentleman like Brooks Robinson. His fielding acrobatics had few peers.

Howard Freedlander
Annapolis
…

Greetings from a concerned county citizen. I have been sitting here trying to think of a reasonable argument to make to you regarding your role in the future build-out of the Lakeside Project. As brief background, I tried hard while I was an elected member of the Talbot County Council, (2006 to 2018) to fight against what I thought was a terrible abuse of The Smart Growth effort, in our fine County and in the State of Maryland. The Lakeside Project has to date proceeded without proper hearings and legal processes that would be typical of any project of this size and scale.

I fault the County attorney for not throwing a penalty flag when this project appeared to move from unprogrammed to S-i, after years of sitting on ice. The County Council also failed to act in its capacity as a County Board of Health when the developer found a novel way to have the many new homes (at least 120 or more of them) tied into a substandard and failing existing Town of Trappe sewer treatment plant. To me this was a dereliction of duty by this County Council and the health and welfare of the citizens who live in proximity to La Trappe Creek. The developer should never have been allowed to tie into a failing plant…period. (I suppose that is polluted water over the dam).

This situation is intolerable and inexcusable, and yet, MDE has granted the developer 100,000 gallons of allowable wastewater for this phase of the project. This decision was unfortunate but certainly better than 570,000 gallons of wastewater, the amount to be allocated at full build out.

If you take the time to read the pre-amble of the Talbot Comprehensive Plan you will see your instructions for how to move forward with your deliberations. Please recommend only allowing the developer to move forward with only those houses that will use up the 100,000 gallons of allocated sewer capacity from MDE.

Please make sure the developer is required come back to the Planning Commission (and therefore back to the public) for any future sewer allocation above 100,000 gallons and have them go through the correct public process in order to justify any future sewer allocation. Please leave all other mapped areas other than Phase 1 marked as “unprogrammed”. That way, the county citizens will finally (and FOR THE FIRST TIME) have a role to play in this huge development. We are tax paying county citizens who will have the direct burden of the added cost of this development. These added costs will impact the following county functions:

• Water Pollution issues caused by this development — La Trappe Creek being Exhibit A
• School overcrowding, bussing etc.
• Police, medical and volunteer fire fighting costs
• State Court and County Jail Use and Overcrowding
• Roadway costs and wear and tear on existing county road infrastructure
• Trash Removal and Landfill costs
• Inspection and Permit oversight (County level)
• Strain on County Funded Libraries
• Etc..

  What happened in the past 17 years since 2006 is over and behind us. While we have regrets about how this developer was given the approval to move forward with Phase 1, we should not allow them to avoid public scrutiny and PC input as this project moves into the next phase(s).

  I hope you will consider the unique role of the Planning Commission and make sure you enforce the correct process moving forward. The new Comprehensive Plan in 2026 will not be considered legitimate if the Planning Commission is allowed to ignore its responsibility to properly review the largest residential project in Talbot County history.

  Many thanks for your tireless efforts to make Talbot County a great place to live and work. Your efforts to enforce our Comprehensive Plan are greatly appreciated by all.

  Dirck Bartlett
  Talbot County

Our community can be forgiven for being skeptical about Shore Regional Health’s latest timeline for construction of the regional medical center having heard encouraging prognostications for many years. 

One wonders if this is the case now. While the 2025 start of construction date was reported in the September 20th Star-Democrat, LuAnn Brady, the new COO of Shore Regional Health and responsible for managing construction of the medical center, stated at a July 22nd public meeting co-sponsored by the Democratic Women’s Club and the AAUW, that construction wouldn’t begin until 2028.

Without an independent source of information on the situation, scapegoating the certificate of need process for delays is easy because the process is arcane and even well-meaning board members can fail to understand what’s occurring.  A community needs a mayor or other elected officials who will advocate with outside decision makers and provide that independent source of information.

Working as a Certificate of Need analyst for four years in Boston’s high powered health care environment, it was usual to see communities and their elected officials organize to insistently advocate for community health care needs when local hospital’s arrangements with establishment behemoths were at issue. 

Even locally, we can recall the intense community organizing that occurred around the Chestertown Hospital, in which Chestertown’s mayor and councilmen played a part advocating for community needs before Shore Regional Health.

The future of the current hospital site is the present challenge.  There is a clear need for Easton’s elected officials to inform and advocate for the community when it comes to the use of the substantial real estate of the current hospital site.  Our elected officials should organize an independent public process so that interested parties in Easton can know what’s going on and express the needs of the town.

That the elected officials have initiated a public process for community input regarding the current hospital site would be reassuring to prospective donors to the capital campaign. If the 2025 start of construction is to be believed, there’s no time like the present.

Holly Wright
Easton

As we reflect on the anniversary of the ratification of the Constitution (September 17), we would do well to remember the precarious nature of the liberties enumerated therein, particularly the First Amendment, which has come under attack recently in schools and libraries throughout the nation.

“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…” Freedom of speech includes the right to read, write and share ideas and opinions without fear of penalty, yet teachers and librarians across the country are being penalized for presenting ideas and opinions that others may not agree with. According to the American Library Association, there were more than 1,200 attempts to ban books in 2022, the highest number reported since the organization began compiling data more than 20 years ago.

Close to home, the Maryland Association of School Librarians reports that 50 book titles have been preemptively removed from school library bookshelves in Carroll County, and the library supervisor has been reassigned to a different post. New, stringent rules for selecting books have been instituted there, and school librarians were informed that they will be held “accountable” should any title deemed “inappropriate” appear in their library collection.

These draconian measures are not taking place in a vacuum. They are part of a large, well-orchestrated political agenda that includes the dismantling of the public school system. A recent Washington Post article details the legal campaign launched by certain well-funded, ultra-conservative groups aimed at defunding public education on the grounds that public schools are “indoctrinating” children in defiance of parental rights. Certainly, the rights of parents are important, but they apply only to the individual parents’ right to restrict the reading choices of their own children; not my children, and not yours.

It’s ironic that the groups behind these efforts often have the words “liberty” or “freedom” in their names. However, the blatant and unconstitutional censorship of reading materials in public arenas sounds to me more like fascism, not freedom.

Mary Pellicano
Retired librarian, Talbot County Free Library Trustee
Easton

The Wagner flyers were abhorrent. That could be considered an opinion, but it’s a widely shared one and an argument easily won.

And we might also all agree that a modest level of health insurance coverage awarded a long-serving and beloved mayor upon leaving office shouldn’t be a problem. That was my reaction; but could an employee benefit not awarded similarly to all Town employees, even one identified as as a gift of special recognition, under certain circumstances become a concern?

Absent either shared experiences or wide recognition of a problem, Al’s “angry” letter wasn’t likely to win hearts and minds. But upon those occasions might we find “payment of health insurance benefits for the appointed town attorney (or any other official) common practice,” whether lawful or not, a step too far?

Offering such a benefit to our very modestly compensated Town Council and Town Mayor is not only understandable, we would all likely agree it’s commendable.

Easton Town Council members are currently paid a fraction of the compensation ($5,000, members, and $6,000, president) awarded County Council members (four times those numbers, and earning every penny). But who else is receiving these benefits?

Compensation moves in the opposite direction for our town and county managers. Those salaries are not not as frequently shared, but they are a matter of public record; and Town compensation at certain levels may understandably have become a concern.

For example, our Talbot County Manager’s salary (2022) is close to the average amount awarded for this position in Maryland, while the Easton Town Manager’s salary is considerably higher.

Awarded by the town council at their discretion, as described in town code, a bit of research would seem to make Al’s concerns understandable and worthy of consideration.

At this point, and despite the Wagner flyers, Al remains hopeful for an opportunity to make progress toward a regional hospital and continue to promote worthy town infill; but however things go Tuesday, he is heartened by the “support of so many new friends” and intends to throw a party to celebrate Tuesday’s election, “no matter the outcome.”

Carol Voyles
Easton

In a recent post in the Talbot Spy, regarding Town of Easton personnel matters and policies, Al Silverstein states that he “is angry.”  

Mr. Silverstein claims that the town paid two months of health insurance premiums for Mayor Willey and his wife, following the mayor’s retirement; that the “most highly paid” town employees have been exempted from required contributions to their health insurance coverage; and that the health care premiums for a “contract employee” – specifically, the town attorney – were paid in “violation of federal law.”

The Town Council years ago adopted a resolution authorizing retirement gifts for appointed officials, and the two month “retirement” health insurance premium that troubles Mr. Silverstein amounted to a grand total of $937.00 (after 32 years of service, an amount far below what is authorized).  

The supposed “exemption” from responsibility for health insurance premiums is authorized by a Town Council resolution dating from 1976.  Thereby, the town has authority to pay for health insurance for elected officials – a modest and well deserved benefit, as those elected officials are not “highly paid”.  

Payment of health insurance benefits for the appointed town attorney (or any other appointed official) is common practice, and is not a “violation of federal law” as Mr. Silverstein claims.  Indeed, such payments for health insurance of appointed officials – a widely accepted fringe benefit for most appointed officials in local government – specifically was authorized by a 1976 Town of Easton duly adopted resolution.  

Taking his complaint further, Mr. Silverstein falsely characterizes the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, stating that unnamed “administrative and supervisory employees” have been “wrongly” receiving overtime pay.  In fact, FLSA regulations specifically allow “exempt” employees such as supervisory personnel to be compensated for extra time worked, whether by way of a flat sum, a bonus payment or hourly overtime.  

Finally, Mr. Silverstein’s claim that the town did not obtain approval of the Historic District Commission for the town hall remodeling is false.  In fact, the town has a copy of the HDC decision approving the town hall remodel.

Al Silverstein’s failure to object publicly, and act when he could have, if he actually was troubled by these claimed indiscretions, should disqualify him from a return to elected office. The Town of Easton deserves better than this. Elect Bob Willey, a man of integrity, to serve out the open term of President of the Easton Town Council.

Bonnie Morro
Easton