By 2g1c2 girls 1 cup

Theater Review: Curtain Falls on Cecil County Council Impasse; Moore to Pick Successor, Sends ‘Tier’ Map to State

December 19, 2012
By Nancy Schwerzler

News Analysis

It was almost like watching the Elkton version of “Sunset Boulevard” — the classic movie in which forgotten silent film star Norma Desmond pathetically declares, “Mr. DeMille, I’m ready for my close-up”– when the new Cecil County Council held its last formal session of the year Tuesday. Deadlocked again, the Council abdicated its role in filling a vacant District 2 seat and as a result, new County Executive Tari Moore will get to pick her own successor on the Council.

Moore also stepped into the breech of a previous deadlock, when she was still a member of the old board of County Commissioners, over selection of a land preservation map mandated by the state. So she took action administratively to send to Annapolis a less-restrictive “tier” map (Map 10) that only includes lands already in preservation, such as parkland or farms that owners have voluntarily enrolled in farmland protection programs. If the county had not submitted its own map by 12/31/12, the state could have imposed a much more restrictive map on county land.

“This map protects the property rights of our landowners, as well as the property rights of those with development currently going through the approval process,” Moore said, noting that the Commissioners had been unable to make a decision despite “more than six months of discussion, a public hearing, and much input from our community.” Moore had supported Map 10 as a commissioner but the then-ruling “Three Amigos” majority did not.

Some of the County Council performers are having a hard time adjusting to the new power structure on Chesapeake Blvd. in Elkton and, like the Hollywood original, the Sunset of their influence. There was lots of drama and overblown soliloquies by two actors who are about to be demoted from lead players to understudies: Council members Diana Broomell (R-4) and Michael Dunn (R-3).

And there was a backstage rump chorus, sung by the county Republican Central Committee, to promote its own list of three nominees to fill Moore’s vacant Council seat—even though the panel’s role was removed from the official process by Moore’s decision to switch from Republican to “unaffiliated” several days before she was sworn in as County Executive.

For the past two years, Broomell and Dunn—along with ousted County Commissioner James Mullin (R-1) — ruled the County Commissioners board with their “Three Amigos” majority, steamrolling over Moore and fellow Commissioner Robert Hodge (R-5). But now the tables are about to be turned.

Ever since the new Council held its first meeting on 12/4/12, the four members now seated have been unable to agree on how to proceed to exercise their power under the Charter to fill Moore’s empty seat by 1/3/13—or else be forced by the Charter to yield that power to Moore. Broomell and Dunn have repeatedly attacked Moore’s decision to ‘unaffiliate” and refused even to consider proposals by Hodge and new Councilman Dr. Alan McCarthy (R-1) to establish a process to review and vote upon potential candidates.

And in the eleventh hour Tuesday—with no further meetings scheduled before the 1/3/13 deadline to act– the remaining Two Amigos did not go down without a fight. Broomell tried to get the Council to go into a secret, closed session to consider the three names submitted via email by the GOP committee, which is controlled by acolytes of Del. Michael Smigiel and Sen. E.J. Pipkin, R-36.

Their nominees were Robert Gorman, Chris Zeauskas and Bill Feehley. Gorman is a longtime Smigiel supporter and water-carrier who voiced robocalls against Hodge and Moore in the GOP primary and he led a PAC that attacked Judge Keith Baynes, who defeated Smigiel in a race for Circuit Court earlier this year. [SEE Cecil Times report on the PAC’s financing here: http://ceciltimes.com/2012/12/smipkin-pals-seeking-cecil-county-council-seat-linked-to-pacs-sleaze-against-fellow-republicans/ ]

Zeauskas chairs the Central Committee, after losing to Moore in a party primary for Commissioner in 2010. He stepped aside from the committee’s nominating process and the email listing the panel’s choices was submitted by Carrie Taylor, the committee’s treasurer.

Feehley, who owns a private accounting firm, was the independently elected county Treasurer for two years, until Charter abolished that position. He applied for the new county position of Director of Finance but Moore passed over him for that appointment.

At Tuesday’s worksession, Dunn backed Broomell’s bid for a secret session but Hodge and McCarthy did not—deadlock again. “I don’t think the Central Committee did a good job” and did not pick the “best qualified” candidates, Hodge said. He noted that “multiple people” have submitted applications for the vacancy directly to the Council or to Moore and did not go through the GOP committee’s selection process.

Broomell engaged in a lengthy exchange with sort-of County Attorney Norman Wilson—who explained that technically he was out of a job when Charter government took effect and he was simply volunteering his services to the Council and the county now as “a lowly non-contract lawyer.” Nevertheless, Broomell demanded an ‘opinion’ on her assertion that Moore’ decision to unaffiliate was improper, that the GOP committee still should have a binding say in picking nominees, and she questioned how many nominees the Council could consider.

Wilson initially was hesitant to offer an opinion, since the council had been divided, 2-2, on whether to seek a legal opinion. A clearly exasperated McCarthy said he would be willing to change his vote if Broomell would agree to accept whatever Wilson had to say as a final authority on the matter, but Broomell declined, saying repeatedly, “I need to keep my options open.”

A clearly frustrated McCarthy declared, “We sit here and ruminate—it’s crazy.”

“Please control your temper,” Broomell declared.

Dunn—whose perpetual silence as a member of the County Commissioners was his hallmark, with Mullin often interpreting a “nod” of his head as a vote—suddenly found his Norma Desmond voice. With Mullin no longer around to translate his silent movie gestures, Dunn has now entered the world of the talkies.

Apparently reading from a piece of paper, Dunn uttered his dramatic lines: “We are becoming a Banana Republic under Queen Tari the First.” Warming to his script, Dunn said that “the fix is in and another Hodge-Moore puppet” will be selected for the vacant Council seat. And, during discussion of tier maps, Dunn sought to broaden his repertory to the reality TV genre, calling Moore “Her Majesty” and claiming her administrative action was “done in a very underhanded way…just par for the course.”

Not to be outdone by Dunn, Broomell took to the stage to denounce everyone from former Commissioner Brian Lockhart, who Dunn defeated in 2010 to gain a commissioner’s seat, to “these same people [who] have attended each of these meetings for two years.” She indicated members of the Cecil County Patriots, the local tea party group, who have been among her most vocal critics and she accused them of not following ‘tea party’ principles.

And, competing with Dunn for most negative soliloquy against the county executive, Broomell asserted that “she will have supreme power” and will cater to “a lot of special interests.”

But the weekly drama in Elkton will likely be cancelled when Moore selects her replacement on the Council. She is not bound to a specific timetable but with the pattern of deadlock among the current Council four, filling the seat quickly in early January would seem to be a high priority. The next Council worksession is 1/8/13 and a formal business meeting is 1/15/13.

Although she is not required by the Charter to do so, Moore is considered likely to pick a Republican for the vacancy so as to keep the Council all-Republican—and ease her own move back to the GOP as is expected once the seat is filled. But the GOP central committee’s list of candidates is probably not high on her radar.

Moore voted last May against seating Gorman on the Charter government advisory panel, that was then in the final stages of submitting recommendations on how to ease the transition from commissioners to Charter. He was the choice of the GOP Central Committee then, too, but Moore—in an apparent reference to his involvement in the Smipkin robocalls against her— said that Gorman “does not do his research before he makes baseless and inaccurate accusations.”

[SEE Cecil Times article here: http://ceciltimes.com/2012/05/gorman-smigiels-pac-man-picked-by-smipkin-gop-committee-for-charter-advisory-panel/

Zeauskas is a dedicated Smipkin foot-soldier, especially for Pipkin who financed the robocalls and smear mailers against Moore and Hodge in the primary. He could be expected to slide into Mullin’s role as another Amigo to perpetuate a three-vote majority opposing Moore initiatives.

Feehley is a more viable candidate, since he does have two years of experience as Treasurer, has attended most Commissioners’ worksessions and business meetings and is familiar with most key issues facing the county. But Feehley crossed some political lines two years ago, when he resigned as treasurer of Moore’s campaign committee after he was, initially, recruited by Pipkin to run for county Treasurer. Moore had to re-print all her campaign literature and yard signs, at considerable expense, to change the required authority line from Feehley’s name to that of her husband, Steve.

The Smipkins eventually cooled on Feehley and fielded their own candidate, Carrie Taylor, to challenge him in the primary but she lost.

More recently, Feehley has joined with Broomell in challenging a proposal by the county’s public school leadership to pursue a new vo-tech school on the now vacant Basell science complex north of Elkton. The Three Amigos faction refused even to allow an engineering feasibility study, which the schools would pay for out of current funds.

But Moore cited her support for the vo-tech school in the election campaign and her strongest advocates in the local business and educational community would expect to see the proposal move forward under her administration—not be stymied again by a County Council.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

37 Responses to Theater Review: Curtain Falls on Cecil County Council Impasse; Moore to Pick Successor, Sends ‘Tier’ Map to State

  1. Russ on December 19, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to Exec Moore and Council members Hodge and McCarthy! Thank you for your steadfast resolve. Just a couple more weeks and you should be able to start getting some things done.
    Bye bye Broomell and Dunn!!

    • G-WHO on December 20, 2012 at 6:15 am

      To the Cecil Times: Thank you for the wonderful, exciting, stimulating, excellent journalism and dedication to accurate coverage of Cecil County politics and government this past year. It has been a true democratic adventure, not to mention a three ring circus without a safety net.

      Hopefully this coming year will begin soberly, with determination to move Cecil County forward for the benefit of the citizens. Thank you again, keep the quality standards high as I know you will, let the citizens know who is truly concerned with their interests and is working on their behalf.

      It has been my honor and distinct pleasure to know you; keep up the good work. See you in 2013. God Bless, Happy Holidays and a Happy Peaceful New Year.

  2. Bill Feehley on December 19, 2012 at 5:03 pm

    The way you write these stories bogles the mind.

    If attempting to do what is right for the county is wrong and offends some people then I am sorry. I have never, and I repeat never, put my personal views above those of the county and voters.

    When I reviewed the tech school project I said from the beginning I support the tech school but the numbers presented do not make sense. I do not now nor will I ever believe that the BOE can retrofit a 156,000 ft building including furniture and all the equipment for the amount they specified. If someone can show me how this can be done in detail not just saying so, than I will be happy to support the plan.

    I am a taxpayer as well and I believe the citizens elected me to do my best for the benefit of the county. I can happily go to sleep each and every nite knowing that I did my best. If this offends others than I feel sorry for them. I do not believe that I have supported any faction over the other.

    I cannot understand how the BOCC can make decisions that have financial effects for the county without ever asking a financial person for some details. Diana has asked and I have given her my opinion and several times we disagreed but she at least had some information to think about.

    I appreciated the opportunity to serve the citizens of the county but it is now time to move on. THANK YOU TO ALL OF CECIL COUNTY it has been my pleasure. Have a Happy Holiday and a very Happy New Year.

    • ConcernedInCecilCounty on December 20, 2012 at 4:38 pm

      Why is everyone ignoring the assets at the current school? A lot of that would be included in any move and help keep the cost down.

    • Joe C on December 21, 2012 at 9:46 pm

      Bill,
      You did a great job keeping the county in good financial shape through some very difficult economic years. Unfortunately I think the new regime will spend right through the money to keep all the campaign promises that were made.

      The objective of the BOE should be to educate their students in the most cost effective ways not buying defunct industrial buildings. Don’t worry Cecil County will soon reflect the current conditions in Port Deposit, boarded up buildings and businesses closing due to high taxes and unbearable regulations.

      Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all, but watch out next year the Grinch is coming!

      • Lauren C on December 23, 2012 at 5:58 pm

        Joe –
        Your “should” implies that I and the four other elected school board members don’t make our decisions based upon what is best for students while also seeking cost effective options. If this is what you meant, please explain what you think would be my motivation? I am a taxpayer and citizen of this county who, as with my own personal budget, strives to make smart sensible investments that I hope will yield the most positive return.

        Contrary to constant rumor and innuendo, the board of education – which is in fact a non-partisan elected body now – is made up of individuals who our proud of their county, our schools, and who want to see our communities thrive and prosper. In the most recent election, two of the Board of Ed seats were unopposed. Now, maybe I don’t understand politics, but it seems to me to be a sign that people generally think we’re doing a pretty decent job.

        Our meetings consistently have few community members in attendance. If folks truly feel we are not serving the best interest of the county citizenry, then come engage in our open process. The meeting schedule is on our website: http://www.ccps.org

  3. Rick O'Shea on December 22, 2012 at 9:00 am

    Finally,Councilman Dunn shows his lighter side. We now have Queen Tari, Prince Robert, Prince Alan, Jester Dunn, and Eunuch Broomell. Can hardly wait for the newest cast member to be revealed.

    • Joe C on December 23, 2012 at 9:48 pm

      Don’t worry it will be a pawn for Queen Tari!

      • Ron Lobos on December 26, 2012 at 9:54 pm

        Kinda like Mullin and Dunn were for Broomell ?

        • Joe C on December 31, 2012 at 9:23 am

          Ron,
          One major difference they were both elected by the citizens of the county, not Knighted by Queen Tari. Had she not pulled her little stunt the ELECTED Central Committee would have recommended three names to be reviewed by the elected council and one of those names would have been chosen as a replacement. Happy New Year!

          • Rick O'Shea on January 2, 2013 at 8:13 am

            The voters have seen through all the Smipkin ELECTED and appointed puppets. The ELECTED central committee did submit three names and a majority vote of the council members was not received. By law, the pick now goes to the County Executive. Hopefully, Broomell and Dunn will begin working for the best interests of the county.

          • Ron Lobos on January 4, 2013 at 9:25 am

            Happy New Year to you too, Joe. I have to agree with Rick O’Shea,–a majority vote of the Council members was not received, therefore, the decision on who will represent the 2nd district goes to the County Executive.

            If the RCC wanted to, they could have extended an olive branch to the council and worked to choose someone who was acceptable to the two amigos as well as McCarthy and Hodge. Then all of this would have been avoided, but they chose not to.

            So don’t put the blame on Moore. Look in the mirror and accept responsibility for the short comings of the RCC. They had a huge opportunity and blew it because they chose complete control over compromise. THE RCC WAS AT FAULT.

    • Rick O'Shea on December 29, 2012 at 9:02 am

      I predict that a mature, accomplshed, self-confident, disciplined, consensus builder will be chosen. I will have confidence in both the executive and council sides of charter government.

      • Joe C> on January 5, 2013 at 7:15 am

        Ron,
        Excuse me, are you saying that Bill Feehly was not acceptable! How can you even say that, he did a great job for the two years he was in office and would have brought his accounting experience to the council. It was Robert Hodge and Allan McCarthy who refused to vote because they wanted a larger list. Fine but the three names that were submitted by the CCRCC within the time frame allotted in the charter, deserved an up or down vote.

        How many people submitted the applications to the council after a request to do so was published in both county papers? My understanding is that it was two at the most. So the CCRCC interviews nine Republicans, submits the names to the council and the council does not vote on the names and the CCRCC is at fault? The only thing that is faulty is your logic…

  4. Joe C on December 26, 2012 at 10:48 pm

    Lauren,
    Thank you for your response. It was not my intent to imply that generally the school board does not have the best interest of the students and taxpayers in mind. However in this case it is my opinion that not ALL options have been explored to provide a technical education to the 150 students that we keep hearing about.

    I would suggest that you hold an open forum to discuss all options, including the pros and cons of each. That ALL ideas be explored and that outside the box thinking be encouraged to accomplish the goal of technical education for Cecil County students.

    As you are aware I attend many county meeting, including ones hosted by you at Elkton High School and attempt to stay informed on the issues. I looked at the web site you provided and several things jumps out at me; there is no link for TAXPAYERS to comment on the budget just employees and students. Secondly, I would suggest that you would have more members of the community at your meetings if they started at 7PM, like most other county meetings instead of 6PM. Happy New Year!

  5. Michael W. Dawson on January 2, 2013 at 9:29 am

    There is a fatal flaw in the argument of Joe C. and a few others – not all elections are created equal!

    County Executive Tari Moore, and for that matter all members of the County Council, were elected to a “PUBLIC office of trust” under the Maryland Constitution. On the other hand, state political parties are permitted access to the primary election ballot under MD statutory law, to: in addition to nominating their candidates to the general election ballot, elect individuals to their county central committees. The members that comprise the Cecil County Republican Central Committee were elected to a “PARTY office,” which serves not the interests of the public at large, but rather the partisan organization and its members they were elected to represent.

    Unfortunately, the current leadership of the Cecil Co. Republican Central Committee serves only the self-interests of a few and has, for all practical purposes, abandoned the rank-and-file Republicans in the county.

    Don’t get me wrong – I am a Republican myself, and enthusiastically promote and fervently defend the principles held by the Party, and encourage and support candidates who similarly ascribe to those philosophies of governance. This is exactly why I support and defend Moore’s decision.

    When, on December 3, Tari Moore swore her Oath of Office before God and those she was elected to serve, that she would “to the best of [her] skill and judgment, diligently and faithfully, without partiality or prejudice, execute the office of County Executive …”

    Moore was elected to a public office of trust – we must not confuse, nor equate this with the partisan position of a party office. I hope this distinction can help to clear away some of the confusion and anger – and bring us together to work for the good of Cecil County!

  6. Joe C> on January 3, 2013 at 6:26 am

    Michael,
    Do you really think that Ms. Moore would have been elected as a “unaffiliated” had she run under that banner? Very, very doubtful! She used the Republican flag to run for office because it was in her best interest and then when she won, she ran from that flag, again for her best interest, not that of the county.

    Do you believe that different Repubican voters elected the Central Committee than elected Ms. Moore? Yes, we were elected to represent all Republican voters of Cecil County, not a few as you claim and that is what I have done through out the years. It is obivious to me that you are prepping yourself for another polictical run, what office are you going for now?

    • Jackie on January 4, 2013 at 2:26 pm

      Joe, when you start taking your lines from Michael Dunn (“Queen Tari”), that is not a good sign. Yes, Moore would have been elected as “unaffiliated”, because the people elected her, as a well-known entity with a clear record. In fact, the “R” likely lost Moore some votes since it was exploited to win votes for the Democrat, because it is well-known that most Republicans are unhappy with the poor representaion they have had under Broomell, Mullin, and Dunn, and were fearful that another Pipkin-Smigiel stooge like Mullin– who was overwhelmingly defeated in the primary– would be chosen by the central committee.

      Moore has also been respected as a Republican, because unlike some on the council and some on the Republican central committee, she actually abides by the party’s stated platform. Her decision to unaffiliate was not for her own self-interest or as a rejection of the party, but for the interest of the county; it is pretty obvious by the backlash she has endured at the hands of certain members of the establishment that this did not benefit her politically.

      On the contrary, this gives the county an opportunity to have a 5th council person who is a conservative Republican and who is interested in serving the people, not just a few members of a politcal machine that have hijacked the party for their own benefit.

      It is pretty ironic and hypocritical that those (like you) who are doing all the hooting and hollering about the “R”, openly supported the Democrat in this election and never supported Moore to begin with, so I guess the “R” doesn’t really mean a whole lot to you, does it?

      It is also ironic that one of the Republicans whom the council supported for the financial chief position as well as for the vacant council seat has stated that Obama is a good president, that he agreed with his jobs bill, and that Obama has handled the economy pretty well. So I guess the “R” doesn’t always mean a whole lot, and in most voters minds, actually abiding by the principles of the party is much more important than the label.

      Unfortunately, members of the party who voted for Obama’s fiscal deal have betrayed conservative voters in Washington and there are those in office who have not supported Republican principles while on the council. The voters corrected part of the problem in the primary, and will take care of the rest in two years.

      • Joe C> on January 5, 2013 at 8:10 am

        Jackie,
        Happy New Year! When has anyone won as an unaffliated in MD in a partisan election? As a matter of fact when is the last time anyone ran? We know many people who because of their dislike for Obama voted straight “R”, which benefited Ms. Moore. Why would voters be against Ms. Moore , if they dislike Dunn, Mullin and Broomell? It is your opinion that Broomell and Dunn have provided poor representation, some people may agree with what they have done. Who made you the judge of what is good and bad?

        So now you are going to attack Bill Feehley with heresay and innuendo, even if he did say this, it does not disqualify him for the position. He is entitled to his opinion and free speech. Since you are purported to be a patroit then I know you support free speech or do you only support the speech you agree with and want to stiffle everyone’s else?

        I am waiting to see who this 5th council person will be. I seriously doubt that it will truly be an independent thinker, rather it will just be a Moore puppet. I predict at lot more 3-2 votes. Same thing, a different day.

        How can you say that Ms. Moore abides by party principles? The charter has already proved to be bigger government, promises made will definitely increase taxes and more regulations are just around the corner.

        As far as openly supporting a Democrat, you are wrong in that matter! I worked public events during the summer season supporting all Republicans and I worked the polls in November, with your sister by the way,h anding out fliers with Ms. Moore name on it, along with other Republicans.

        The issue with me is trust and loyality. Ms. Moore ran as a Republican knowing what the playing field was and then after she reaped the benefits of flying the Republican banner, she ripped it down and flew her true colors. Yes, Jackie, being a Republican in Cecil County, in the last election was a major advantage. How many Democrats and unaffliates took the county? Case closed.

        • Jackie on January 8, 2013 at 12:43 am

          Joe, you said “It is your opinion that Broomell and Dunn have provided poor representation, some people may agree with what they have done. Who made you the judge of what is good and bad?”

          Did you sleep through the primary? Didn’t you see the results where Broomell lost to Moore by 32 points, and Mullin (the incumbent) lost to McCarthy by 24 points? The Republican voters already judged “what is good or bad” so it seems your argument is with them.

          You also asked, “Why would voters be against Ms. Moore , if they dislike Dunn, Mullin and Broomell?” Joe, unless you have been marooned on Smipkin Island, you know very well that the Democrats used the poor representation of Mullin, Broomell, and Dunn to recruit Republicans to vote for Pam Howard [the Democratic candidate for County Executive.] It was used as a talking point by Democrats in letters, social media, and word of mouth. They knew that the suggestion that the current RCC would put another Smipkin on the council would be enough to persuade some Republicans to vote for a Democrat.

          You are grasping at straws to suggest that repeating a statement made directly to me and other people publicly is an attempt to stifle free speech. This is neither hearsay, since the statement was made to me and others, nor an attack since it was merely reciting an opinion that had been expressed. I certainly don’t take offense if people repeat or quote my political opinions, and if someone is seeking public office, their positions on political issues should be available to citizens. Are you suggesting that Bill Feehley should be ashamed of his opinions? I certainly don’t think he should, and he should continue to express them freely. I was simply pointing out the irony in the attacks of the RCC against Moore not selecting him for the position of financial chief, and their focus on the Republican label over actual Republican principles.

          Hopefully, voters took into account the fiscal impact of charter before voting on it, but that is totally irrelevant to Moore’s decision to unaffiliate. However, I believe that citizens supported charter largely because of the habitual bullying and controlling nature of our state representatives.

          Time will tell what kind of leaders and just how fiscally responsible Moore and our council people will be. I trust that they will do the job they were elected to do and will hold them accountable to do so. Your predictions about the current government are unsubstantiated. Which new regulations are just around the corner? Who told you that taxes will go up? The biggest impact on taxes are from new state and federal mandates- particularly environmental madates and the teacher pension shift. The pension shift was supported by our Republican state reps as well as some members of the Republican Central Committee who told us that the shift in cost was a “win” for the county.

          • Joe C> on January 8, 2013 at 9:53 pm

            Jackie,
            I will attempt to answer your questions. Yes, the two candidates you mentioned did win the primary election, however you did not mention that the Republican turnout was less than 10% and that Ms. Moore ran as a Republicanand did not receive the majority of the votes cast.

            You claimed she would have won as an unaffiliated and I claim she probably would not have even made the ballot because of the number of signatures required to gain access to the ballot as an unaffiliated candidate. Bottom line she used the Republican banner to win and then changed uniforms once the game was over. It would be like a Team playing as the Ravens all season, receiving fan support and funding, only to find out at the end of the season that they were really some other team like the Steelers or Colts!

            I was not marooned on Smipkin Island either. The Republicans I know voted for Pam Howard because they knew she was a fiscal conservative and served 12 years without any hint of scandal as Treasurer. She served out her terms before jumping to another job. Most people do not know what a Smipkin is, only those of us who are really engaged.

            I never said anything about Bill being ashamed of his positions. What you were attempting to do in your first post was to make a claim that he was not qualified for the position based on statements that you claim were made. My point is that he should free to express his opinion and that the three names should have been voted up or down instead of being ignored by the council due to inaction. His opinion on the President does not mean that he would not follow Republican principles. I have observed him in action and he did what he could to keep taxes low and government small.

            The voters were duped by the Friends of Charter as far as the cost of charter. Presentations were made that showed the cost of charter was going to be less, now when it is actually being implemented we can see the truth on the cost.

            If you listened to the promises that were made during the general election and start to add up the cost you will soon come to the same conclusion, there will be plenty of spending not counting state mandates in future budgets. Taxes and fees are going up, way up, mark my words. I hope you and your fellow patriots do hold the entire council accountable and not just a select few.

    • Michael W. Dawson on January 5, 2013 at 10:12 pm

      From the moment I re-entered the fold of the GOP, I have been calling for unity within the Party. I am disappointed that not only have we not united under one banner, but have splintered even more.

      Simply put, County Executive Moore did not unaffiliate for philosophical or ideological reasons, but rather it was a strategic move to block an ill-prepared and politically-driven county Republican Central Committee from negatively impacting the function and positive move forward of Cecil’s charter government. Politics aside, Moore was elected to serve ALL of Cecil County and she has seen to that – even opening herself up to partisan ridicule for the betterment of the County and its people.

      I am unwaveringly confident in Moore’s commitment to our Party’s principles and her commitment to nurturing our county for prosperous business influx and growth, and a county that provides a safe, tax-friendly environment for families to call home and raise their children in a wisely-developed educational environment.

      If I do decide to seek public office, it will be to serve the people and the businesses who have chosen to call Cecil County “home.” I value and embrace our county’s diversity and uniqueness – from its waterways to the fields, the towns and villages to the country roads, our bedroom communities to our farms, our distance travelers and local commuters, our small shop owners to the larger corporate enterprises and, our moms and dads and children who make Cecil a nice place to visit – and an awesome place to call “home.”

      Cecil’s families and businesses are under assault from the intrusively heavy-handed majority in Annapolis led by its bullying faction from the D.C. suburbs. We must be united to oppose their oppressive increases in gas, sales and income taxes, as well as their all-out assault on rural counties and our way of life.

      • Joe C> on January 7, 2013 at 9:07 pm

        Mike,
        I am surprised that you have deemed Bill Feehly as a person who would negatively impact the function and postive forward movement of charter governemnt! I guess you saw him different than I did. To bad the council did not give him and up or down vote.

        • Michael W. Dawson on January 8, 2013 at 9:28 am

          Joe,
          It was Councilmembers Broomell and Dunn who denied Mr. Bill Feehly the consideration of the Council.

          It was their insistence that ONLY the three names offered from the central committee would be considered that may likely have cost Feehly the appointment. I’m not passing judgement on anyone’s credentials. I contend that the stubbornness of those two in refusing to seek common ground with Councilmen Hodge and McCarthy denied ALL those who earnestly applied for the vacant District 2 seat a fair hearing and consideration.

          • Joe C> on January 9, 2013 at 9:55 pm

            Mike,
            I think we can agree that the council as a whole should have made a selection. Council members Broomell and Dunn were just following the intent of the charter and not twisting it for some desired outcome.

  7. Stupid Intolerant on January 4, 2013 at 2:38 pm

    Dear Mr. C,

    I beg to differ with you that executive Moore won her election on account of the Rep party and the Rep Central Committee of CC. I believe she won despite them. Let’s not forget the RCCoCC’s own personal [supporter] financed mailers to insinuate she was in a pod with Martin O’Malley, and with commissioner Hodge vested in methodone clinics and other false and discusting accusations.

    Now you and most of the RCCoCC … are eating a meal of dirty politics. How does it taste? By the way, I spoke with Mr.Good Dawson (not to be confused with Mad Dawson of the RCCoCC) and I suggested he run for the vacated or should I say abandoned elected correspondent of Smipkin Island.

    • Joe C> on January 5, 2013 at 8:17 am

      Stupid Intolerant why do you hide from the light of day? Are you afraid to reveal your identity? You missed the point, she won because she flew the Republican banner. How many Democrats or unaffliated candidates won the county in the last election?? ZERO! Case closed!

    • Joe C> on January 6, 2013 at 3:49 pm

      Stupid intolerant,
      Please tell me the last time someone won as an unaffliated in a partisan election?
      Fact:
      CCRCC paid for large ads in two newspapers supporting Ms. Moore.
      CCRCC paid for robo calls that supported Ms. Moore.
      MDGOP paid for a huge mailer (1-2-3) which supported Ms. Moore.
      No Democrat took Cecil County in the last election.
      Conclusion: Ms. Moore would have not won if she ran as an Unaffliated candidate.

      As far as the “vacated elected correspondent of Smipkin Island”, if you are talking about Mr. Dunn’s Central committee seat, then again you are WRONG. He had to resign by county charter rules, since he could not hold two elected offices. I believe he even received an opinion from the State Attorney General. Good for him, at least someone in Elkton is following the intent of the law. Have a nice day!

      • Stupid Intolerant on January 7, 2013 at 11:43 am

        Mr.C– Let’s run down your points one at a time. Is”C”a very short last name or are you wearing a disguise? Personally I wear a disguise for a few reasons:

        a)I am not a Smipkin so I am concerned with negative mailers from them and harrassing phone calls from Councilman Done’s office. You don’t have that concern since you have drank their Koolaid.

        b)I am a vampire, but I would rather be a vampire than a mole. You state I miss your banner point. Well the point you missed previously is that an unaffillated [candidate] would have garnered Democrat voters who might not vote Republican. Point being the Smipkin\Republicans did more damage to candidate Moore than favors, at which point they lost all credibility –as have you by openly backing executive Moore’s opponents including the Democrat in the general election.

        So the case isn’t closed; your mind is. As for Councilman Dunn, it is not his vacancy [on the Central Committee] to which I refer. The difference in roll call at an RCCoCC meeting before his resignation and after are the same. That is to say, he didn’t attend them–sort of like his absence from the Citizens Corner. If anybody wants to tout his performance at anything they are not paying attention.

        No, the vacancy I referred to was the author of the soap opera”Smipkin Island.” Apparently you have a good memory, it’s just short. And yes I am having a nice day, but not as nice as tomorrow!

        • Joe C> on January 7, 2013 at 9:24 pm

          Dear SI,
          A) I do not like Kool-aide it is fatting and can cause health problems. I do not drink anyone person’s “koolaid”, I call them like I see it.

          B) Glad to hear you are a vampire. You will fit in nicely with the vampires in Elkton who soon will be sucking on every taxpayers wallet with their higher taxes. Again please present to me a person who won as an unaffliated in a major partisan race in MD.
          You are wrong about openly supporting Democrats, this did not happen nor will it.
          Funny I never saw a vampire flying around our CCRCC meetings, so how would you know who was there or not. I have seen Mr.Dunn at many of our meetings. Please pay attention when you make statements you can not back up.
          Smipkin Island was a fictional story for entertainment purposes. Be careful it will soon break daylight, climb back in your hole!

          • Stupid Intolerant on January 8, 2013 at 2:43 pm

            Mr.C, We are making progress.We have established you are a fictional writer. Now let’s scroll up and revisit your imaginary claims. Executive Moore does NOT want to raise taxes. With that being said, allow me to predict state mandates being construed as “Executive Moore raised taxes”. Funding teachers’ pensions will be a reality Mrs. Moore will be powerless to avoid. Reality will dictate –this is fact not fiction. Rose’s diner and York Building Products suing the county are facts and your candidates Broomell and Dunn forced the citizens of this county to legally defend.

            By golly, executive Moore legally changed party affiliation to spare the citizens of this county from further poor decisions at the hands of you and the majority of the Smipkins serving on the RCCoCC (Republican Central Committee of Cecil County.)

            Now put on your big boy britches and accept the reality that the county is in a better position today than it was before Mrs. Moore unaffilliated. So there, Spielberg.

          • Joe C> on January 9, 2013 at 10:29 pm

            SI,
            In response to your 8 Jan post.

            I am not a fictional writer; you are since your name is fiction. Ms. Moore made promises during the elections that will raise county taxes, these promises have nothing to do with state mandates. Lawsuits are nothing new to county government, they have existed for centuries. I notice you fail to mention the lawsuit between the county and the Town of NE. Council members Broomell and Dunn had nothing to do with that. The street runs both ways.That is why the courts are there to make judgements. I figure that you would be very happy to live under a dictatorship, where the King or Queen controls everything.

            Yes, Ms. Moore did change parties, but now she wants to hire another attorney to defend that decision at taxpayer expense. Since it was a personnel decision she should foot the bill of any lawsuit resulting from that decision.

            For your information, the CCRCC generally does not make decisions affecting the citizens except in cases of filling vacancies. Since no decision was made by the council we will never have a chance to know if that was a poor decision.

            As to whether the county is in a better position, only time will tell, but it does not sound to good after reading the Whig editorial this morning concerning the lack of action by Ms. Moore on filing the council position.

  8. Michael W. Dawson on January 7, 2013 at 9:38 am

    There’s that pesky word again – PUBLIC. Joe, if you are going to reference the Charter, why not quote it? The applicable citation to which you refer, Section 205(b)(1), reads, “While serving as a council member, no council member may: Hold any other elected public office;” Note the distinguishing term ‘public.’

    Maryland election law is replete with these distinctions between a PUBLIC office and a PARTY office. The best single-source distinction I have uncovered can be found in the Md. Election Law Code Annotated § 9-210, ‘Arrangement of ballots — Candidates and offices.’ While certainly too cumbersome to submit in this forum, I invite you to confirm, or refute if the case may be, my conclusions.

    As I said in an earlier post, not all elections are created equal, nor are those persons elected on a ballot equally defined.

    It concerns me deeply that we have members of our legislative bodies in D.C., Annapolis and in our very own Cecil County who don’t prepare, don’t research and do their due diligence, and don’t apply critical reading and thinking skills. We deserve better representation than some of the disappointments currently seated in our halls of government.

    • Joe C> on January 7, 2013 at 9:02 pm

      Mike,
      So you are now wanting the readers of this blog to believe that you are more knowledgeable than the State Attorney General? It is my understanding that their opinion was that Mr. Dunn did to have to step down once charter is in place. He followed the law. If you disagree with the SAG then please by all means present your concerns to the SAG and then post their response in this forum. Thank you for your intrepetion of the law.

      • Michael W. Dawson on January 8, 2013 at 9:14 am

        Joe,
        I’m fairly confident that if Councilman Dunn did, in fact, seek the advise and counsel of the Maryland Office of the Attorney General, such was done in writing. I further suspect that, if such a request was made, the subsequent response was in writing as well. I’m not doubting, nor claiming to be more knowledgeable than Mr. Gansler and his office – I am doubting Councilman Dunn.

        If an opinion was rendered, then surely there was statute or case law to support the finding issued. Interestingly enough, this same prohibition of holding two elected public offices exists in State law as well. How, then, were then-Commissioners Dunn and Mullin elected to the central committee? Following is the nutshell version of the distinction. Candidacy implies qualified to serve if elected.

        § 5-204. Candidacy for more than one office.
        (a) Public office — An individual simultaneously may not be a candidate for more than one public office.
        (b) Party office. —An individual simultaneously may not be a candidate for more than one office of a political party.
        (c) Candidacy for both party office and public office. — Unless otherwise prohibited by rule of the applicable political party, an individual simultaneously may be a candidate for a party office and a public office.

        Again, I am not claiming the AG’s office and I’m honestly interested to read the question as phrased to Mr. Gansler’s office and his response. To me, all supporting evidence points to supporting the perspective I have presented, and there is no evidence that I have found to support your claim – neither in the letter nor the spirit of the law.

        • Joe C> on January 9, 2013 at 10:03 pm

          I guess we will have to ask Mr. Dunn to publish the opinion to solve this debate.He may have been given bad advice, who knows. Maybe if you are right you have a future as a lawyer.

          • Stupid Intolerant on January 13, 2013 at 12:58 pm

            Good luck prodding anything voluntary from Dunn. You can save a step by cutting out the middle man and going directly to his puppet master.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Advertisements

IT'S BEEN AN HONOR TO SERVE CECIL COUNTY

My sincere thanks to all who voted for me and supported our campaign to continue serving all of Cecil County

*While there was more I wished to do, I now look forward to spending more time with my family

*I cherish the friends who have reached out to me and share in the pride of what we have accomplished for Cecil County.

(Auth: Citizens for David Rudolph, Linda S. Read, Treasurer)

On Facebook:
http://on.fb.me/1txgi2z