On June 27, at the meeting of the Oxford Commission, Susan Delean-Botkin, the loser of the recent Commissioner election, was sworn in as a new Commissioner. The winner of the election, Katrina Greer, sat unconsulted and powerless in the audience.
This action was problematic, not because of who was put in office, but how she was put in office.
You may ask how could this happen? There are several pieces to the puzzle.
- A current provision of the Oxford Town Charter allows commissioners to select a replacement commissioner when a vacancy occurs before the end of a term.
- The people of Oxford, following required Maryland law protocols, have asked for a Charter referendum to require all vacancies on the Commission be filled by an election of the registered voters. The vote on the Charter referendum is scheduled for July 18.
- On June 20, there was an election to replace outgoing Commissioner Jimmy Jaramillo. Katrina Greer won the election with 237 votes, her opponent, Susan Delean- Botkin received 170 votes. Greer supported the proposal to fill vacancies by special election. Delean-Botkin said she opposed this Charter change.
- Greer’s campaign was focused on Accountability, Communication and Transparency. Actions of the Commission, including recent ‘separation’ of 30 plus year Chief of Police, Patrick Maxwell, have frustrated many Oxford residents. Other issues of concern include hiring practices, transparency of employee compensation, communication between the Commissioners and citizens, the dramatic growth of the Town’s budget and efforts to address rising water levels, including frequent high water due to strong tides and storms.
- At the June 27 Commissioners meeting, residents were informed that commissioner Brian Wells, who plans to leave Oxford, had submitted his resignation with immediate effect.
- At the same meeting, outgoing Commissioner, Jimmy Jaramillo, with 8 days remaining in his term, proposed that Susan Delean-Botkin, loser of the recent election, be chosen to replace Wells. The resolution was seconded and without further deliberation adopted. Delean-Botkin was immediate sworn in as Commissioner.
- The ‘fast-track’ process precluded any input from the winner of election, Katrina Greer, who is to be sworn in on July 11. It also precluded citizens from voting to elect a replacement. If approved on July 18, the Charter referendum on the ballot would provide citizens this right.
- The town Charter did not require Wells’ vacancy to be filled before Greer was sworn in or before the July 18 vote.
Once again, the actions of the Commission have puzzled many residents.
The opportunity for citizens to vote for their leaders is fundamental to democracy. The Commission has taken a position to oppose the change to the Charter which would allow residents to vote on vacated seats on the commission. The suggestion on the Town Website that a change to allow citizens this vote would ‘not allow a fair and transparent process’ is absurd.
The recent ‘fast-track’ actions by the Commission to fill Wells’ seat seem to demonstrate the current process does not lend itself to fairness and transparency. Two individual commissioners, one with 8 days remaining in his term, made a decision impacting leadership of the town for the next year; 600-plus voting residents were prevented from participating in this decision.
The suggestion on the Oxford website that filling a Commissioner vacancy by special election is unnecessary because Oxford holds Commissioner elections annually and therefore requiring a special election is out of step with the practices of other Eastern Shore Towns is simply wrong. Faced with a similar circumstance to the Wells resignation, the following towns would fill the vacancy by special election: Trappe (Trappe Town Charter § 205), Berlin (Berlin Town Charter § C6-14 C) Cambridge (City of Cambridge Charter § 3-16),and Centerville (Centerville Town Charter § 414). The proposed Charter change is clearly in keeping with the practices of other Eastern Shore towns.
There has also been suggestion that because the proposed language may need to be nuanced to incorporate it into the Charter, that the proposal should be rejected by the voters. This is not a valid argument. The Oxford Town Charter (Section C4-1) and State Law (Section 4-304(a)(1) of Maryland’s Local Government Code) provide ample authority for the Commission to correct any technical deficiencies.
Next Steps-
1. July 14 Public Meeting in Advance of Vote. The town has scheduled an “information meeting” on July 14, 6:00 pm at the Oxford Community Center. This meeting should not just be a vehicle for the Commission to voice their arguments against the proposed amendment, but a true public hearing where multiple views can be expressed objectively and without prejudice. Hopefully, the town will be receptive to this approach, but that is not assured.
2. July 18 Referendum – The Choice for Oxford Voters. The petition signed by more than 200 Oxford citizens presents voters with a clear choice for the vote on July 18. Going forward: do we want vacancies on the Oxford Town Commission to be filled by the remaining two Town Commissioners (assuming there are two) or by vote of the 600+ citizens of Oxford.
Conclusion-
The extraordinary record turnout for the recent Commissioner election (over 65% of eligible voters) indicates a strong appetite for voter involvement in the important issues facing the Town and its elected Commissioners. The proposed Charter Amendment should be adopted.
Warren Davis, Madge Henning, Mark Lacey
Oxford
Mickey Terrone says
When the used car salesmen came to my Oxford door to sell the new resolution to revise the Oxford Town Charter to provide for an election when a town commissioner steps aside or can no longer serve, there was a special urgency in the sales pitch to sign “now”. The “pitch” was that the people deserve to choose commissioners, no matter how extended or brief time remains in their unexpired term(s). Sign here. I took the pitch at face value and signed. Democracy is good.
In fact, Oxford has used the town charter effectively in the past to appoint some highly respected commissioners who served the town very well in the past. What has become evident over the weeks following the traumatic “separation” of long-time Police Chief Pat Maxwell and the ensuing inflamed rhetoric at town meetings, is that a reactionary campaign was organizing to remove the town manager and the commissioners who had voted for the Police Chief’s separation.
It became apparent to some that Commissioner Brian Wells planned to sell his home in town and thus would soon become ineligible to serve as commissioner. That, along with the news commissioner Jimmy Jaramillo would not run again in June created the opportunity for those who resented the commissioners’ decision on the Police Chief and who have grievances with the town manager, quickly to maneuver to replace two outgoing commissioners with two dedicated to remove the town manager.
Thus, the frantic effort to change the town charter with a slapdash, artless document fraught with inconsistencies and ommissions was slammed through under the pretense of democracy but with the sly, underhanded goal of throwing out the manager and 2/3 of the commissioners over a brief period and gaining control of Oxford while claiming transparency, openness and the glory of democracy.
Most Oxford residents don’t know why Chief Maxwell was released after 30+ years of service. Most all of us like him and were surprised and shocked. The 3 commissioners who made the decision did so, I’m certain, regretfully, but for reasonable purpose(s). Thus, townspeople were disappointed and even angry because a non-disclosure agreement was signed by the parties. As a citizen shocked at the turn of events, I believe that the commissioners and manager acted in the best interests of the Town of Oxford, and with the approval of the town attorney. I believe the Chief acted in his own best interests and the NDA has not been violated to the best of my knowledge.
Rather than respect the difficult decision made by the commissioners, however, some frustrated townspeople have used this resentment to parlay it with an excuse to remove the highly successful, effective town manager. Why? Grievances. This town manager doesn’t make side deals with residents who want a break on their water bill or some special but perhaps extralegal side deal. Over a decade, the town manager has frustrated numerous well-to-do residents who perhaps feel entitled to have special requests granted because they almost always get their way.
I believe this was the essence of the recent campaign and still grates the ongoing resentment of some people. Perhaps they want a town manager who will take a modest bribe to drop a water bill. Perhaps they want a special deal regarding some property issue. God forbid Oxford gets a town manager who would descend to those depths. These same people would be outraged that their neighbor got some special deal and they didn’t. That kind of mismanagement and malfeasance can easily create longstanding, ugly divisions here.
The irony is that in the next couple of years, these same people might well regret ever raising this issue. Acting reflexively after some event often comes back to haunt those who scheme.
Susan Delean-Botkin campaigned to moderate emotions in the town and she is now in a position to be a moderating presence, improve the performance of town management and improve communications and transparency to and from the town office. The 2 outgoing commissioners and 1 understood the ploy and acted responsibly. Misguided retribution is not the answer for Oxford. The three commissioners were disrespected, insulted and abused for their difficult decision. That behavior must not be rewarded. My wife, Susan, has a long record of working as a volunteer leader in this town. She will help make Oxford a better place for the next year.
Mickey Terrone
James Wilcox says
Mickey is married to Susan Delean-Botkin, and I for one appreciate his decision to submit an emphatic, loyal defense of his wife. Mickey strongly disagrees with the prior submission to the Spy, which is his right. But has Mickey answered the question of why it was ethically appropriate and not an affront to democratic principles to appoint Susan as Town Commissioner so soon after the voters had soundly rejected Susan as a potential Town Commissioner in an election? Whether or not it may have been a legally defensible exercise of discretion, are the above ethical considerations and democratic principles important, and if not, why not?
Rebecca Gaffney says
Well said Warren, Madge and Mark. It was so disappointing to learn that we voters were essentially disenfranchised by the action taken by the Oxford Commissioners at their last meeting. Hopefully this travesty can be quickly reversed.
Dr. Barbara Paca, OBE says
Thank you Warren, Madge, and Mark for taking the time to write such a concise letter. Standing behind you in solidarity and hopeful that with Commissioner Katrina Greer’s methodical, intelligent approach all will be straightened out.