A number of local organizations and individuals believe that recent actions of the Talbot County Council dealing with land use, noise, sewers and short-term rentals will seriously harm our quality of life in Talbot County. They have formed a Bipartisan Coalition for New Council Leaders with the goal of changing how the Talbot County Council deals with such issues. Though I am a Republican, I support their efforts. I believe that quality of life in Talbot County is not a partisan issue; it is an overarching concern that addresses preservation of our rural, uncluttered way of life. The sole purpose of the Coalition is to ensure that a majority of the County Council is made up of members who will preserve the fundamental character of our county.
The Coalition has made the tactical decision that the best way to achieve this purpose is to ask voters NOT to select the current Council President Jennifer Williams when they fill out their ballots. That has provoked a reaction whose intensity puzzles me immensely. Some seem deeply offended that anyone would campaign against one (or more) candidates. Ridiculous. Every campaign has two elements – why you should vote for me and why you should not vote for my opponent.
Far too many races in the past couple of decades have indeed degenerated into nothing but personal attacks on the other candidate. That is far from the case here. The Coalition has clearly stated that its supporters have no personal animosity toward Jennifer Williams and how and why it opposes the actions of the County Council under her leadership. The personal attacks on character and motivation are all coming from her supporters.
There is no reason that party politics should be the basis for choosing members of a County Council. At the national and state level the Republican and Democratic parties have become polarized and stand for very different visions of what the direction for our state and country should be. Some supporters of the Coalition are deeply and sincerely committed to one of those visions, and some are committed to the other.
But at the local level, what matters is not party but rather the policies that county officials pursue after we elect them. The issues that concern the Coalition are fundamentally local and affect our lives and property directly and immediately. None of us have anything to gain or lose from the party identification of members of the County Council – what matters is how they will run the County. Thus I do not see support of the Coalition in any way violating my commitment to Republican principles.
Therefore I am appalled at the reaction of the Central Committees of both parties to the very existence of the Coalition. They accuse the Coalition of “attacking” one member of the Council. I see in the Coalition’s statements and materials opposition only to the policies Ms. Williams developed and voted for as President of the Council. That is what politics is all about. If you do not like their policies, you vote the politicians out of office. The Coalition has uttered no personal attacks. They are coming from the Central Committees, not the Coalition.
The Chair of the Republican Central Committee of Talbot County went so far as to say that the Coalition “make[s] a mockery out of our local political process.” He should be ashamed. The leader of a political party has no business telling a group of citizens that they cannot campaign against a politician based on her actions and votes. It is the Central Committee’s comment that subverts the political process, not the actions of a citizens’ group. Its Chair should reread the First Amendment on the right “to petition government for the redress of grievances.”
Since there is no other benefit to rank and file Republicans or Democrats from having members of our party on the County Council, I can only conclude that the Central Committees are motivated by a desire to preserve their power to hand-pick the members of the Council. Indeed, that is how Jennifer Williams came to be on the Council. Four years ago she was not one of the five Republicans who won in the primary. One of those five, the popular owner of Chick-Fil-A, was ordered to withdraw by his corporate superiors, and the Chair of the Republican Central Committee put Ms. Williams on the ballot as a replacement. She was carried into office in a Republican sweep.
What the Central Committee gets out of having its own people on the Council escapes me, but that seems to be the clear motivation for these unseemly attacks on a group of voters doing their best to preserve our quality of life.
I do agree with the implicit belief of the Central Committees that if one candidate is defeated, another will be elected. And that candidate will come from those already on the ballot.
The Coalition decided from the start that it would not support any candidate, and that has made it difficult for me to feel entirely comfortable with its campaign. I do not want to throw out one Council majority just to find that the replacement makes me even more unhappy.
I do not just care about noise, sewers, short-term rentals and the County Plan, though all of those are important. I also care about how the Council protects our bond rating by maintaining an adequate reserve, whether it is spending too much on capital improvements, whether it is inclined to raise taxes, and how it will set priorities between school budgets and public safety, our two biggest needs. I also want our County Council to do all it can to keep marijuana out of the County and to respect the decisions of past councils about the Talbot Boys statue.
From this list, it should be clear that I support many of the past actions of the current members of the County Council. I am grateful for their public service, and do not want to jump from the frying pan into the fire.
Thus I had to decide whether there is a group of candidates that I would like to see on the County Council before I could wholeheartedly support the Coalition. My choices are Corey Pack, Pete Lesher, Laura Everngam Price, Chuck Callahan and one of the other Democrats. I believe that out of the first four a majority will emerge that is willing to pursue smart growth and sensitive land use policies, exercise fiscal restraint, scrutinize school budgets carefully, support public safety and maintain civic virtues. I do not believe that outcome is likely if Jennifer Williams or Frank Divilio, who has declared his allegiance to her, are elected.
I will also vote against the Charter Amendment to raise the revenue cap, just to be sure that whoever is on the next County Council will remain under a mandate for fiscal restraint.
Take that as an answer to those who think it is uncivil just to campaign against one candidate.
David Montgomery
St. Michaels
Julie Imirie says
Your comments are spot on and I couldn’t agree more. The Republican Central Committee seems to have forgotten the 1st amendment – the Coalition, regardless of whether you agree or not has every right to speak and dissent. I will, however, take issue with your stand on the revenue cap ballot intiative. We must pass this and not let it go to the next Council. This amendment is designed to be a progressive increase to pay for debt already assumed, and passing it to the next Council will leave them with only one choice – to raise income tax and that will hurt the people who can least afford it. The necessary revenue that must be realized has nothing to do with the budget – it’s about paying the interest on the debt service for the new school, emergency servces, etc. Raising the property tax by one penny per year gathers the necessary income in a fair manner for everyone based on property values. And if it isn’t passed now, it won’t be able to come to the ballot again for another two years. Please reconsider voting yes for this.