In 1953 Standard Oil Company of Indiana (Amoco) attempted to build a major oil refinery on the shores of the Chesapeake, in the Bay Hundred just west of Wittman. How do you think that might have forever changed Talbot County had the citizens not stopped it? In real estate, once mistakes are made, they cannot be undone.
The Trappe East development (“Lakeside”) is the biggest project to hit Talbot County since Amoco’s refinery. I am not a lawyer, but after 40+ years in real estate and having read most of the relevant documents from 2005 (when the little Town of Trappe recklessly inked its deal with Mr. Rocks, the developer), I doubt that Trappe East can be stopped–nor is that my goal or intention.
But I do think it is a worthy goal –a minimum expectation, in fact–to see that our County Council requires Mr. Rocks and his team to follow proper procedure, and not to facilitate shortcuts, not to turn a blind eye to duplicity practiced in broad daylight. Especially when those short cuts impose long term environmental damage and risks to public health.
(Did you know that the Council is our Board of Public Health; that we are entrusting Messrs. Callahan, Divilio, Pack, Lesher, and Ms. Price to make the final decisions in that arena? Those five have the power to override the Public Works Advisory Board unanimous opinion, as they did last August when they gave the developer a green light (by a 4-1 vote) to proceed.)
Regular readers will recall the story and the basis for my concerns from the last two “Focus On Talbot” pieces here and here.
On May 7, I filed a Petition requesting that the County rescind that green light (i.e., Resolution 281) until we learn exactly what the developer is going to install in the way of a waste water system, since what was reviewed by the County was materially different. Within four days over sixty other individuals, including Dirck Bartlett, had joined the chorus calling for this to be handled right.
To say that the County gave short shrift to our Petition at its May 11th meeting doesn’t capture it. The headline would have read, “Dog Barks, Kicked Aside.” As required by the Council’s Rules, the Petition’s fifteen-word title was read aloud and it was given the number 21-01. The Acting County Attorney then took less than one minute to explain the petition process–quite incorrectly, as detailed below–whereupon Mr. Callahan was eager to move on. (You can watch the video and see it for yourself.) Mr. Lesher, however, did then pose a few broad questions about process (actually, the same question three times), to which the Acting County Attorney responded with incorrect answers.
Recall this was a virtual meeting, and highly controlled. At no time did the Council announce that some sixty individuals other than Watson were also petitioners, though I had explicitly requested that be acknowledged in an email that afternoon. I had also explicitly requested to be allowed to present the Petition to the Council and was on the zoom for that purpose. (At the tail end of the meeting an hour later, they did accept a short and ineffective call from me in the public comments section of the meeting.)
What the Acting County Attorney told the Council and viewers was that the Secretary had to certify, read, number, and “maintain a file” (per Rule VI.B), and at that point the Council “may, but shall not be required to, consider the petition and take any appropriate action,” per Rule IX. (The actual text of the Rules does not contain the words “shall not be required to.”). He then said, ”In order to initiate legislation, a member of the Council would need to direct the County Attorney to prepare the same in open session before it would go forward.” He advised that “it must follow the process like any other legislative resolution.” Finally, if a Council member requests the legislation outside of open session, the Attorney said it would take two weeks to get it on an agenda.
This is NOT the way a petition is introduced and considered under the Council’s Rules of Procedure. Section XIII.D. says:
“When petitions are made to the Council, the persons or parties presenting the same shall have the opportunity to state their case by presenting witnesses, exhibits, and other evidence.”
(In fairness, the Acting County Attorney has been on the job only a couple of months, and this petition process is very uncommonly used. But the Rules are only twenty pages long, and two members have been on the Council for a decade or more. Also, it does not explain the absence of a correction—or even a response—since the error was called to the County’s attention. Assuming it was an error.)
On Friday morning I delivered to the County the letter below, citing this rule and other considerations, and calling for the Council to adhere to their own Rules in dealing with this citizens’ petition—which now has a good deal more than sixty supporters, perhaps twice that. This Petition was properly submitted, and that act alone initiates a regular legislative action that does not require the more familiar step of a Council Member introducing the proposal under alternative rules. And that is true whether Council members wants to dodge the issue or not.
You’ll see that in that letter (below) I asked that the issue of proper procedure for our Petition be addressed at tomorrow night’s meeting, given the clear and unambiguous language above. That was delivered well before the noon deadline when the agenda is finalized, but at this writing the published agenda makes no reference to the Petition whatever.
It appears the County Council may be intending to simply ignore this demand that proper procedure be followed regarding our Petition—ironically, for the purpose of introducing a Petition demanding that proper procedure be followed in the biggest land-use matter before the County since 1953. Abuse nesting inside abuse.
To add your name to the growing roster of petitioners, email a succinct message to that effect to [email protected].
Dan Watson is the former chair of Bipartisan Coalition For New Council Leadership and has lived in Talbot County for the last twenty-five years.
*******************************
May 21, 2021
Ms. Susan Moran, Secretary
Talbot County Council
11 North Washington St.
Easton, MD 21601
Re: Petition 21-01
Dear Ms. Moran:
This letter is to respectfully request that the Council follow its own clear Rules of Procedure with respect to the introduction of a resolution to Rescind Passage of Resolution 281, Without Prejudice, in form and substance described in my Petition 21-01. The reasons I believe this is necessary are also briefly cited in my Petition and other materials delivered to you on May 7th.
The manner in which Petition 21-01 was handled at the Council’s May 11th meeting was not in accord with its Rules, and the comments and advice provided in the open portion of the meeting by the Acting County Attorney to the Council were wrong in failing to cite Section XIII.C, among other things. As discussed below, proper submission of a Petition in and of itself initiates a regular legislative action, and does not require the more familiar step of a Council Member introducing the proposal under alternative rules.
(Were Council Members to themselves introduce the Resolution set forth in Exhibit A to the Petition–that specific Resolution, not some alternate relating to Resolution 281–with the matter advertised, referred to the PWAB and the Planning Commission prior to a public hearing and vote by the Council as in the normal course, then that alternative means of dealing with the subject matter would be acceptable to me, as I indicated at the outset.)
As to petitions however, the Council’s Rules of Procedure expressly addresses their introduction (and indeed the public’s role in these meetings generally) in Section XIII.C. There the Rules state:
“When petitions are made to the Council, the persons or parties presenting the same shall have the opportunity to state their case by presenting witnesses, exhibits, and other evidence.”
I am sure the Council will not argue that accepting an unannounced, time-limited phone call from me an hour later, during the public comment period of the meeting, fulfills that requirement.
I also want to reiterate the point I made during public comments on May 11th: the notion that Council members are to “gather information on their own” and then make a decision as to whether or not to accept a Petition is fundamentally incorrect–and illogical. The Council must accept a proper petition, which sets in motion a systematic process for gathering all of the relevant information (from the PWAB, the PC, and public hearing) in order to then make an informed decision.
There is also the matter of notice. At I.D. of your Rules of Procedure it is stated that “The Secretary to the County Council shall give such legal notice as is required by law of all Council…hearings and shall provide information to the news media and the general public as to the agenda, purpose and matters pending before the Council.” It is legally required that the County post Petition 21-01 on its bulletin board, including its Exhibits, and advertise it for two weeks.
For all of the reasons cited, I hereby call for you (a) promptly to put the Resolution contained in Petition 21-01 up on its website under Pending Legislation; (b) to advertise in proper form for two weeks that it will be introduced by Petitioner at the first regular legislative meeting thereafter; (c) upon introduction, to refer the matter to the Public Works Advisory Board and Planning Commission for their recommendations, and (d) to schedule and notice a public hearing on a date to follow. Subsequent to the public hearing the Council, of course, will then vote whether or not to adopt the Resolution attached to Petition 21-01.
Unless resolved sooner, the process for handling Petition 21-01 is a proper agenda item for Council’s May 25th meeting, and I hereby request that I be heard on the procedure required by the Council’s own Rules of Procedure.
Sincerely.
Dan Watson
Petitioner, Petition 21-01
john FISCHER says
For a number of years I served Talbot County as a member of the Public Works Advisory Board and, later, as a member and chair of the County Planning Commission. In all that time, I do not recall Council members stiff-arming a citizen to the degree they are Dan Watson in this case. I find their behavior puzzling, for not only is not a good look, it leads one to question why.