REVOLT!

In a moment that defined their political careers, Montgomery County Council Members Duchy Trachtenberg, Phil Andrews and Valerie Ervin put the fate of the public employees’ cost of living adjustments on the table last Friday. Present to greet them were over 300 chanting, stomping, clapping and occasionally yelling union members.


Council Members Trachtenberg, Andrews and Ervin are members of the council’s Management and Fiscal Policy (MFP) Committee. The committee’s charge on Friday was to discuss the extent to which savings on the county’s labor costs should be applied to fix its $297 million budget deficit. “Labor savings” ultimately means funding less for personnel costs than is called for in the county’s collective bargaining agreements: a practice derisively labeled by the unions as “contract busting.”

A word about the union members in the pictures. Assembled by pugnacious MCGEO President Gino Renne in the nearby County Executive Office Building, they were in no mood for “contract busting” and marched across a rain-soaked street to confront their council overseers. Their radioactive yellow battle color is not intended to please the eye and it certainly does not. It is designed to attract attention. They certainly received plenty of it on Friday.

Council Member Trachtenberg, chairwoman of the MFP Committee, opened the meeting with new transfer and recordation tax receipt numbers for April. Transfer and recordation taxes depend on property sales and they have been devastated by the recent collapse in the county’s real estate and construction market. According to Ms. Trachtenberg, the county received $13 million in transfer and recordation taxes in April 2008, down from $18 million in April 2007. For the year to date, transfer and recordation taxes totaled $138 million, down from $180 million the year prior. “Taxpayers are reaching a breaking point,” declared Ms. Trachtenberg and that justified a 2% reduction in the unions’ negotiated COLAs.


Council Member Andrews agreed. Citing the fact that personnel costs accounted for 80% of the county’s budget, he told the ornery union members, “What’s fair is to ask everyone to help.” As he has for months, he criticized the unions’ agreements as “unaffordable” and stated flatly, “I would not have negotiated the contracts that came over to us.” Supporting Ms. Trachtenberg, he said, “I believe that the 2% COLA reduction is a fair way to go.”

Pictures cannot do justice to the unholy din created by the roaring public employees. Hundreds of police officers, bus drivers, librarians, deputy sheriffs, correctional officers and park and planning workers rose to their feet to challenge Council Members Trachtenberg and Andrews. “What are you giving back?” one cried. “We are the taxpayers!” another yelled. “You’re hitting us twice!” pointed out one employee who was also a county resident. Worker after worker decried simultaneous increases in fuel and food costs, cuts in county services and proposed cuts in COLAs as a squeeze on their standard of living from multiple sides.

And then Ms. Ervin took the mike. She is a 25-year veteran organizer and trainer in the labor movement and everyone knew what she would say. “I was a proud member of the UFCW union,” she announced to the crowd. “We do not have to balance this budget on the backs of working people.” She recounted a bookful of statistics on poverty and income inequality to the groans of the audience (some of which we will examine on this blog) and concluded with, “Montgomery County is affluent for only some people.” “I believe that cutting salaries will hurt our local economy,” she said, “and I will not support a 2% COLA reduction.” We present the crowd’s reaction below.


In the end, the MFP Committee did not recommend a 2% COLA reduction. Instead, Ms. Trachtenberg introduced a motion calling for $40 million in “labor savings” with the exact mechanism to be decided later by the rest of the County Council. Mr. Andrews concurred and Ms. Ervin ferociously dissented. Neither the council members nor the staff justified this particular number against a lesser or greater amount. No mention was made by anyone of the unions’ identification of $67 million in additional revenues and savings as reported on this blog. The Post and the Gazette also omitted that fact from their coverage.

So what will become of the committee’s proposal for “labor savings,” a euphemism for underfunding the contracts? There do not appear to be any other votes on the council for the MFP Committee’s proposal, especially considering the fact that the union contracts are affordable in the next fiscal year. Instead, a rough consensus is forming in favor of a slightly lower property tax increase than that proposed by the County Executive along with a carbon tax proposed by Council Member Nancy Floreen.


But even that plan involves breaking the county’s charter limit on property tax increases, which generally holds tax receipt gains to a level equaling the increase in the consumer price index. Seven of the eight County Council Members must vote to exceed that limit. Both Council Members Trachtenberg and Andrews oppose breaking the charter limit, enough to kill any property tax hike. Will either of them budge on that position, thus enabling the union contracts to be preserved? That is the big question. We will have an answer by Thursday.

Labor Between the Hammer and the Anvil

As Montgomery County's budget battle draws to a clamorous climax, a new bomb has been dropped.

Yesterday, Council Member Trachtenberg sent the following letter calling for a 2 percent cost of living reduction to each of the county's public sector unions:



The unions countered in two ways.

1. In a letter to Ms. Trachtenberg sent today, MCEA, SEIU Local 500 and the school supervisors listed $67 million in new revenues available to the council next year. Those revenues include:

$14 Million
Adjustments in OPEB [contributions to future retiree healthcare liabilities]; would allow for 8 year payout, but does not assume the same level of increase; $11 million in savings from MCPS and $3 million from other agencies.

$9 Million
Net gain from increases in energy tax [as proposed by Council Member Floreen].

$10 Million
Could be taken from PAYGO.

$19 Million
Reduction of .5% into the reserve [maintained by the county to protect its AAA credit rating].

$15 Million
Potential carry-over carry over funds that were set aside in the FY 08 budget for emergencies, such as snow removal that were not needed.

2. In their letter to Ms. Trachtenberg, the unions state, "An additional source of revenue is to take into account any revenues in excess of projections in the current budget. We have no knowledge of what that figure is since it has not been shared by the County Executive’s office." Indeed, rumors are flying that the county's income tax receipts may be higher than first thought. The unions have sent a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request to the County Executive's office seeking a monthly tabulation of new income tax revenues received from the state. They hope to discover evidence that income tax receipts are higher than projected, thus relieving the pressure on their contracts.

One of the sad aspects of this showdown is that it may not be necessary. A week ago, we demonstrated to our readers that the County Executive's budget projects $301 million in new revenues for FY09 against $154 million in added union labor costs. At least for next year, labor's cost of living adjustment is easily affordable. Nevertheless, the hammer is falling.

In the private sector, an employer could not do what the county is considering. If a private company attempted to unilaterally change a labor agreement, the union could strike, file unfair labor practice charges, get enforcement orders from the National Labor Relations Board and the courts and file suit to collect benefit contributions. Only employers under bankruptcy protection could unilaterally alter wage levels. Montgomery County may be in a recession, but it is not under the supervision of a bankruptcy judge!

The fate of the unions' COLAs is far from certain. Council Members Trachtenberg and Phil Andrews can block the County Executive's proposed property tax increase, which requires seven of the eight sitting council members to pass. But altering the union contracts would require five votes. It may be difficult for Ms. Trachtenberg and Mr. Andrews to find three more council members willing to cut the COLAs when there are less electorally-threatening alternatives available.

And if the council simultaneously rejects the property tax hike and rejects COLA reductions, what then? No one knows. But the choice must be made in less than a week.

Challenge to the Unions, Part Two

In Part One, we reported on County Council Member and Management and Fiscal Policy Chairwoman Duchy Trachtenberg’s letter to public employee union MCGEO offering a choice between layoffs and COLA reductions. Today we examine whether those measures are justified by the county’s dire budget situation.

Concerned over the county’s long-run finances, Council Member Trachtenberg asked council staff for an estimate of the future obligations to the county imposed by its public employee union contracts. Two weeks later, the County Council’s merit staff director responded with a 129-page memo outlining those costs. Page 2 of the memo contained this statement:

Councilmember Trachtenberg has requested information on agency compensation costs over time. One measure of these costs is the cumulative fiscal impact of the current or pending three-year negotiated agreements with the six County and MCPS unions, starting with the base year. See the fiscal impact statements on pages 37-39 and 111-113. The cumulative fiscal impacts are $117.9 million for MCGEO [government employees], $45.4 million for the FOP [police], $37.2 million for the IAFF [fire fighters], $61.9 million for non-represented employees in County Government, and $577.7 million for MCPS.

The total of these amounts, $840.1 million, does not include higher ongoing costs for health benefits for active and retired employees, nor does it include the $1.2 billion cost of the proposed eight-year pre-funding schedule for future retiree health benefits.

Are these marginal costs really accurate? We looked up the supporting data on pages 37-39 and 111-113, which correspond to pages 53-55 and 127-129 in the pdf document. Following is our tabulation of all marginal costs reported.

The marginal costs for each of the employee categories amount to $134 million in FY08, $176 million in FY09, $225 million in FY10 and $21 million in FY11 for a total of $557 million over the four years. (The estimate is low for FY11 because only the fire fighters’ agreements cover that year.) This total is much lower than the $840 million reported on the second page of the staff report, even though that summary refers to the pages tabulated above. There is simply no data in those pages to justify the $840 million estimate.

Furthermore, marginal cost data for FY08 should not be construed as a future obligation faced by the county. FY08, the current fiscal year, expires on 6/30/08. Those costs have mostly been paid already.

Finally, the analysis includes marginal costs due to fire and rescue management and non-represented employees. Why should the unions be held responsible for additional spending on employees they do not represent?

Subtracting out costs for the almost-expired FY08, the fire and rescue management and the non-represented employees, the remaining future obligations faced by the county total $154 million in FY09, $193 million in FY10 and $20 million in FY11, or a combined $368 million. This is a far cry from the $840 million cited at the beginning of the staff report.


Are added salary costs of $150-200 million per year sustainable? The answer depends on the county’s economic performance and the county government’s revenue collections. According to revenue statistics released by the County Executive, revenues collected by the county are projected to rise by $109 million in the current fiscal year (between 7/1/07 and 6/30/08). That overall rise in receipts occurred despite the facts that a) county receipts from the real property transfer tax dropped from $107 million to $80 million (down 25%), b) receipts from the recordation tax dropped from $73 million to $53 million (down 27%) and c) the county may have entered a recession. The above means that even in a really bad year, the county’s revenues continued to rise.

The County Executive’s proposal projects a further rise in receipts in FY09 of $301 million, partially due to his property tax increase. This would be more than enough to pay the $154 million in extra costs associated with the union contracts. At least for next year, the county should be able to meet its labor obligations if it adopts a budget similar to the County Executive’s recommendation.

As for the future, the most volatile components of the county’s revenues are the two tied to real estate sales: the real property transfer tax and the recordation tax. According to the county’s Department of Finance, residential real estate sales volume averaged over $500 million per month from 2006 through the first eight months of 2007. Since then, residential real estate sales volume has averaged between $200 and $300 million per month. It is this collapse in residential real estate transactions that has caused many of the county’s current budget problems. All policymakers – both inside the government and inside the unions – should watch this figure in the Finance Department’s monthly economic updates. If it rises back up to $400 million per month or more, the county’s real property transfer and recordation taxes will begin to recover. If it falls further, tougher times are ahead.

Challenge to the Unions, Part One

In a story first reported by the Washington Post’s Ann Marimow, Montgomery County Council Member and Management and Fiscal Policy Committee Chairwoman Duchy Trachtenberg has written to UFCW Local 1994 (MCGEO), one of the county’s public employee unions, offering a choice between layoffs or smaller pay increases. We reproduce the letter and discuss its importance below.

April 29, 2008

Gino Renne, President
UFCW Local 1994 MCGEO
600 S. Frederick Ave., Ste. 200
Gaithersburg, MD 20877

Dear Mr. Renne:

In light of the difficult decisions County Council faces for the upcoming budget, I am turning to elected union leadership for counsel during this process.

The strong advantage of having union represented county employees is that the union structure, through its elected leadership, is an excellent conduit to reach out to the rank and file. It is important to each councilmember to hear and respect what options county and school employees would prefer as the Council balances the interests of residents across Montgomery County while making our final budget decisions. Without unions in place, this process would be much more difficult.

With the uncertainty of the County Council’s willingness to break the charter limits and concerns over jeopardizing our AAA credit rating, we may well not have the revenue needed to execute the current CBAs [collective bargaining agreements] without invoking their provisions for Reductions in Force. In an abundance of caution, I want to begin a conversation about all available options that might come forward to avoid force reductions as we face the budget deficit.

I am reaching out for an honest and open discussion of options to address our budget deficit. This invitation is extended to MCGEO, SEIU 500, FOP [police], IAFF [fire fighters] and MCEA [teachers]. To facilitate our discussion, below is a list of ideas that have come to my attention that warrant a response from organized labor. You are all invited to submit a memo outlining your concerns and options you feel will be acceptable to the county and school system employees you all represent.

1. If your members were given a choice between a reduction in COLA [cost of living adjustment] or involuntary layoffs through each contract’s provisions for Reduction in Force, which option do you think your rank and file would find most acceptable?

2. The County Executive projects only 58 employees will take an early retirement buyout option. Do you concur with this position, or do you believe there is more demand for this option? What are the best ways to structure these offers to make them more appealing to your members?

3. Would you have members interested and able to participate in a voluntary layoff program that would protect their seniority and health insurance while they drew unemployment for six months? Would there be more interest if this option could be used as a way to bridge a member to retirement?

4. During the District 4 Special Democratic Primary, Don Praisner proposed an extensive labor management cooperation program to help identify savings, much in the same manner as MCGEO’s letter to council. Would your members be interested in such a program?

These questions by no means limit our conversation. For further clarification of this request and any other questions you may have, please contact Eric Hensal through my office. Eric is a former union organizer with a depth of experience in labor issues and a Masters of Public Administration earned through the National Labor College. I am sure you will find Eric an excellent resource as we all chart a course through the current budget crisis.

Cordially,

Duchy Trachtenberg
Chair, Management and Fiscal Policy Committee

cc: Honorable Ike Leggett, County Executive
Honorable Mike Knapp, Council President
Honorable Phil Andrews, Council Vice-President
Steve Farber, Council Staff Director

The letter is a dramatic development in the county’s budget crisis for several reasons.

1. There are only about two weeks to go before the County Council begins voting on the FY09 budget. This letter to the unions comes late in the game. As recently as April 9, the Gazette reported that Council Member Trachtenberg “said the contracts with county employees should be honored.”

2. When Ms. Trachtenberg refers to “the uncertainty of the County Council’s willingness to break the [property tax] charter limits,” she is referring to a situation over which she has some control. After all, Ms. Trachtenberg told the Gazette, “I do not support going over the charter limit.” Added to Council Member Phil Andrews’ opposition to the property tax increase, the tax hike is in real danger of not passing because it requires seven of the current eight council votes. Ms. Trachtenberg’s opposition to the property tax hike may in fact be creating a need for the sort of choices she is now offering the unions.

3. The reference to Eric Hensal is noteworthy. Hensal lost a special election in Takoma Park to fill Marc Elrich’s vacant city council seat and went on to manage Don Praisner’s District 4 County Council campaign. During the District 4 campaign, the Post reported that Hensal was seen entering the County Council building for lunch appointments with staffers for Marilyn Praisner and Ms. Trachtenberg. Has he now been hired as council staff or as a consultant by Ms. Trachtenberg? If he is a consultant, a reference to him in the letter is very unusual. Why would a sitting council member allow a third-party consultant to speak for her on such a vital matter as employee layoffs or COLA reductions?

But there is more. The public sector unions have not forgotten Don Praisner’s frequent criticism of their contracts during the special election. Nor have they forgotten how the Praisner campaign branded union-backed Nancy Navarro as a “special interest” candidate. Are any of the unions likely to view Mr. Praisner’s campaign manager as a desirable interlocutor for labor relations issues?

4. Ms. Trachtenberg gained a famous fan through her letter: none other than Robin Ficker. On Maryland Moment, Ficker squealed with delight:

Trachtenberg is just the kind of person I like---one tough cookie when she wants to be. Continue asking the tough questions Duchy. Social security recipients get a 2.3% increase in 2008 with NO step increases. I loved Charles Barkley. I would ask him, “Charles I know you want to run for Governor of Alabama, but before I vote for you I want to know your views on the economy, NAFTA and healthcare.” He would reply, “Well, I do have a view on the death penalty----they should use it on you!” Trachtenberg reminds me of Barkley.

All of the above is subject to one awful truth: the county is facing a $297 million budget deficit and the County Council has two weeks to go before the tough votes come. Ms. Trachtenberg did not create this deficit and the problems are real. In Part Two, we will examine whether the county can meet its contractual obligations to the unions in the current budget environment.

More Wobbling on the Property Tax

While the great debate between David Lublin and myself over the property tax is now over, the great tumult over the issue on the County Council is just getting started.

The Gazette reveals that Council President Mike Knapp is now uncertain about his vote on the County Executive's property tax proposal. This follows votes against the tax in the Management and Fiscal Policy Committee by Council Members Duchy Trachtenberg and Phil Andrews and an abstention by Valerie Ervin. Council Member Nancy Floreen has also expressed doubts about the tax.

Because the District 4 council seat will not be filled until after the budget is decided, seven of the remaining eight Council Members must vote to break the charter limit to pass the property tax hike. So far, we count two votes against, two votes not committed and four votes with no expressed position. That's a bad sign for passage of the tax hike.

Do any of our readers know if it's possible for the County Council to turn down the property tax hike and not re-open the public employee contracts?

How to Calculate Your Property Tax Increase (Updated)

Much is being made of County Executive Ike Leggett’s proposal for a property tax increase. Here’s how to calculate what it means for you.

Leggett’s property tax proposal has two components. First, he is increasing the property tax rate. Second, he is also increasing the property tax credit that homeowners receive for their primary residences from $613 to $1,014. The combination of the rate increase and the tax credit increase skews the resulting tax hike towards homes that are worth more money.

So here’s how to determine how much more taxes you would pay under his proposal. First, look up the gross assessed value of your property on the county’s property tax account website. (This will be the assessment listed on the county property tax line at the top of the bill.) Second, if your home is your personal residence and you have lived in it for more than a year, you will likely have a county homestead credit. This credit is designed to prevent your net, or taxable assessment from increasing by more than 10% per year. Find your county homestead credit, which will appear in the middle of your bill if you have one, and subtract it from your gross assessment. This is your net assessment. Third, multiply the net assessment by 10% to estimate its value as of 7/1/08. (This assumes that your net assessment is still “catching up” to where it would be without the restraint of the homestead credit. The homestead credit, after all, restrains but does not eliminate taxable assessment increases.) Fourth, multiply your 2008 net assessment by 0.008208 and then subtract $613. This would be your county property tax levy without Leggett’s proposal. (It does not include state taxes, solid waste or water charges.) Fifth, repeat the above exercise by multiplying your 2008 net assessed value by 0.009779 and subtracting $1,014. This would be your county property tax levy under Leggett’s proposal. The difference is your county property tax increase if Leggett’s proposal was passed by the County Council.

The County Executive states that the median assessment for a Montgomery County home is currently $343,200. Under the math above, that home’s county property tax would rise from $2,204 to $2,342, or 6.3%. That's an increase of 38 cents per day. A home assessed at $220,000 would see a tax bill cut from $1,193 to $1,137, or 4.7%. A million-dollar house would see a tax bill increase from $7,595 to $8,765, or 15.4%. (That’s a good size hit on top of the recently-passed state millionaire tax.) The break-even point is $255,331 in net assessed value (after any homestead credit). Homes worth more than this would see a tax hike while homes worth less would see a tax cut.

I performed this math on my own house in Silver Spring. If I had no homestead credit, my home’s assessed value on 7/1/08 would be $463,953. If Leggett’s proposal were passed, my county property tax bill would rise from $3,195 to $3,523 – an increase of $328. That works out to 90 cents per day. But with a homestead credit, my home’s assessed value on 7/1/08 will be $328,544. So my county property tax bill would rise from $2,084 to $2,199 – an increase of $115. Now that’s 32 cents per day.

Try the above formula for your own home. We all have different economic circumstances. Some of you will conclude that your potential property tax increase is unaffordable for your personal budget. If that’s your opinion, you should certainly contact the County Council. But I am ready to pay 32 cents per day - or even 90 cents per day - if it means maintaining quality public services in the county.

Update: In a work session of the County Council's Management and Fiscal Policy Committee yesterday, Chairwoman Duchy Trachtenberg and Council Member Phil Andrews voted against the property tax increase. Because of the District 4 vacancy, two opposing votes are sufficient to kill the property tax hike. If both council members stick to their votes, the County Council will have to locate $128 million in cuts to replace the tax.

Update 2:
In a comment on this post, District 18 Delegate Al Carr points out that the County Council is considering increasing fuel and energy taxes. In the staff memo he linked, Senior Legislative Attorney Mike Faden writes, "A resolution to increase fuel/energy tax rates, sponsored by the Council President, is scheduled to be introduced on April 15, 2008. This resolution would increase the rates currently in effect to produce $11.1 million more revenue. This resolution is introduced as a placeholder to allow the Council, if necessary, to adjust the rates of the fuel/energy tax."

This is big news and we are grateful to Delegate Carr for supplying it. Few household costs have been increasing more noticeably than electricity and natural gas. And a straight tax hike on fuel will ensnare many households at the bottom end of the income distribution that would escape the County Executive's property tax proposal. There may be at least as much resistance to increasing fuel taxes as there is to increasing property taxes. And if the property tax hike fails, then fuel taxes may be increased more as a result. Fuel tax increases are not subject to the charter limit and may be passed by a straight majority vote of the County Council. This is a very meaningful development and I hope the Gazette and Washington Post reporters who read this blog will follow up.

Thanks to Louis Wilen and Al Carr for correcting my earlier failure to account for the homestead credit. When readers correct and improve my content, I will credit them publicly.

MoCo Property Tax Increase in Doubt

Last Friday, Montgomery County Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg flatly told the Gazette, "I do not support going over the charter limit." This is a serious blow against passage of a county property tax increase.

Article 3, Section 305 of Montgomery County's charter restricts property tax increases to the change in the Consumer Price Index with exceptions for "(1) newly constructed property, (2) newly rezoned property, (3) property that, because of a change in state law, is assessed differently than it was assessed in the previous tax year, (4) property that has undergone a change in use, and (5) any development district tax used to fund capital improvement projects." Seven out of the nine County Council Members must vote to override this limit and raise the property tax by a higher amount.

To close a $297 million county budget deficit, County Executive Ike Leggett offered a budget that combined spending cuts with a $128 million property tax increase. Leggett's property tax proposal combines a 7.5% rate increase with a hike in the property tax credit for homeowners from $613 to $1,014, thereby making the tax over-weighted towards commercial properties and higher-value homes.

Council Member Trachtenberg was the first member of the council to openly oppose the property tax increase. Instead, she favors scrutinizing the county's labor costs. According to the Gazette:

Montgomery County needs a "good black and white description" of how much employee salaries, health benefits and pay raises are going to cost the county as it faces a budget crisis, the chairwoman of the Management and Fiscal Policy committee said Thursday.

"It’s very important that we have the bottom line and we have a sense of how we’re going to pay for the wages and the cost of living increases over the next few years," said Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At large) of North Bethesda. "The problems we’re going to face are not for one year only."

Trachtenberg said the contracts with county employees should be honored.

"But I’m suggesting we need to identify what we’re going to pay in these contracts and how we’re going to pay for them," she said.

Council Member Nancy Floreen has also been skeptical of the tax hike, telling the Gazette, "My basic reaction is that I have to be persuaded that we need to expand the property tax rate as much as [Leggett] is proposing... Those are big dollars they are counting on to pull them through and I’m just not there yet." Last Friday, Floreen said on her blog, "Given that these [property tax] increases would be in addition to the State’s bump in income taxes and the sales tax, I’m not convinced the community can bear them. On the other hand, the alternative would be significant cuts in service, which I’m not sure folks are willing to do either."

If Council Members Trachtenberg and Floreen both oppose the property tax increase, it will fail. Because the winner of the District 4 vacancy will not be certified until May 23, after the budget has been passed, there will be only six other sitting members on the County Council when the tax's fate is decided. Seven votes are needed to break the charter limit.

CRG Alleges “Intimidation” by Dana Beyer

Citizens for a Responsible Government (CRG), the organization seeking to overturn Montgomery County’s Transgender Anti-Discrimination bill is alleging “intimidation” by County Council staffer Dana Beyer. And the group claims to have video evidence supporting their allegations.

CRG states in a press release that Beyer encountered its signature collectors outside a Giant Supermarket at Bethesda’s Westwood Shopping Center on Monday February 18. The following six-second cellphone video shows Beyer telling the collectors, “An email went out; you’re going to be asked to leave. Any petitions gathered today are illegal.”



CRG claims this is part of a pattern of “harassment and intimidation” by Beyer and others. Former Republican candidate for Congress Dan Zubairi also alleges that Beyer “ordered” him not to sign CRG’s petition but CRG supplies no evidence to back up that allegation. Finally, CRG alleges that Beyer violated Section 19A-14 of the County Code during the course of her activities. CRG attorney John Garza said he will “probably” file a civil rights lawsuit soon.

Beyer, an aide to County Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg, Vice-President of Equality Maryland and former candidate for District 18 Delegate, told her side of the story to this blog. She said she encountered CRG’s petition collectors on Primary Election Day, the following weekend and President’s Day (2/18), the date of the incident in question. At the Bethesda Giant, she entered the store, told the manager that the petition collectors were violating store policy (which allows the group to collect signatures on only one weekend per month), and left soon after making the statements to the group shown on the video.

Council Member Trachtenberg was the lead sponsor of the transgender bill. Beyer, a transgender female who serves on Trachtenberg’s staff, worked on the bill and advocates for keeping it on the books along with passage of a similar state-level law. Activists with Teach the Facts and Equality Maryland are now challenging the validity of CRG’s signatures.

“These people had a right to collect signatures if they’re not trespassing and they did so. But if they’re trespassing, there’s no right for them to be there,” Beyer told us. “I didn’t harass or intimidate anybody… I don’t think what I did is wrong at all.” Beyer accused CRG of employing scare tactics, saying, “You want to talk about harassment and intimidation – we’ve gotten death threats! I have to deal with this because people are threatening my life and those of my friends and colleagues.” Trachtenberg has also talked about “spiteful messages and threats,” telling the Frederick News Post last year, “(They) left a message on my home phone asking my husband if he knows my sex.”

CRG has two things going against it. First, its video clip is only six seconds long. It does not have any context associated with the events before or after the video was taken. That context, along with testimony and evidence about any other events at other locations, will be relevant in any lawsuit. Second, the organization has a history of distorting the content of the legislation. Given that history, CRG’s version of events cannot be trusted as the entire truth.

But the incident between Beyer and CRG raises some interesting questions.

Did Beyer violate the County’s ethics code?
County Code Chapter 19A-4(m) defines a “public employee” as including “the County Executive and each member of the County Council” along with “any person employed by a County agency, including the director of the agency.” No exemptions appear for council staff or any employees operating off-the-clock. Even non-paid board and commission members are treated as employees.

County Code Chapter 19A-14(e) states, “A public employee must not intimidate, threaten, coerce or discriminate against any person for the purpose of interfering with that person’s freedom to engage in political activity.” Do Beyer’s activities in the video constitute intimidation? That question may be examined in court.

How does this reflect on the Montgomery County Council?
Should CRG go to court, they will probably attempt to tie Beyer’s conduct to her supervisor, Council Member Trachtenberg. County Code Chapter 19A-14(f) states, “A person must not influence or attempt to influence a public employee to violate this Chapter.” CRG’s attorneys may very well ask whether Trachtenberg knew of Beyer’s activities. Trachtenberg has made ethics one of her priorities while on the council. For example, she questioned the ethical implications of lobbyist-paid trips taken to Israel by other council members in the past, ultimately causing the County to abandon them. Trachtenberg has set high ethical standards for herself and others and we would expect her to vigorously battle CRG’s charges in court. Other council members and their staff will pay close attention.

How does this incident change the debate over the legislation?
There is little question that this video will be a propaganda boon to CRG. They can now expand their argument beyond the narrow confines of the legislation (on which they are clearly wrong) and into the realm of civil liberties. CRG will ask what business a County Council employee had in enforcing Giant’s solicitation policy. Trespassing on Giant’s property is a matter for company management and the police. Throw in the fact that the council employee in question was a known advocate for the bill and an employee of its lead sponsor and CRG will claim political targeting by the government. Many people who support the transgender bill will be uncomfortable with the idea of county employees – especially the personal staff of council members – seeking to get petition collectors ejected from store premises. Civil liberties questions are now going to arise on both sides of this debate.

Update: The Sentinel's coverage is here.