Valerie Ervin Issues "Call to Action" on Economic Justice

Montgomery County Council Member Valerie Ervin, who represents Silver Spring, Takoma Park, Wheaton and Kensington, wrote the following op-ed in the Gazette today. We reproduce it here for our readers.

The Gazette
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Economic justice: A call to action
by Valerie Ervin

This month marks the 40th anniversary of the death of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He was assassinated while in Memphis supporting sanitation workers who were on strike to improve working conditions and low wages. For Dr. King economic inequality was an important tenet of the civil rights movement. This new focus was the convergence of racial and economic concerns and had the potential to change the course of the movement.

Forty years later many things have changed in Montgomery County, but much remains the same. In 1975, the county’s minority population was 8 percent. In 2005, census data shows the minority population had grown to 41 percent countywide and was 79 percent in some areas. However, a comprehensive discourse about race and poverty is absent.

In Montgomery County, one of the most affluent counties in Maryland, policy makers often ignore the plight of those who are struggling to make ends meet. I believe that a new conversation about poverty and race must take place.

County government officials explain that growth in the county was less than 1 percent last year. However, what does this mean for an average working family? Without a growing tax base, our roads will continue to experience gridlock and our schools will remain overcrowded. More than 5,000 public school employees must travel from as far away as West Virginia each day to teach our children.

Police officers and firefighters go to great lengths to serve our communities, yet many call other jurisdictions home. Commute times are getting longer because, for so many, the cost of living in Montgomery County is a dream that is out of reach. Montgomery County has the second highest foreclosure rate in Maryland, and we have yet to see the worst of this trend.

Each year our public school system must teach more children who arrive at our doors unable to speak English. Poverty is also an issue for our county’s children with nearly 25 percent of school children eligible for free and reduced meals.

So where do we go from here? I have traveled throughout the county and visited the homes of people who dream of simple achievements that many of us take for granted. Their voices are silent in our most critical public policy debates. What I have found is that there is a disconnect between what preoccupies policy makers and what truly troubles the majority of working people who are struggling to care for children, pay for housing and cover the ever increasing costs of utilities, fuel and groceries. The current economic downturn impacts working families disproportionately, but they are too busy trying to make a living to spend time lobbying lawmakers.

As a call to action, I propose a summit for state and local policymakers to begin a new debate — a conversation about how to achieve economic justice for all of our residents. We must focus on opportunities for the future, not artificial limitations imposed by the past.

Valerie Ervin, a Democrat from Silver Spring, represents District 5 on the Montgomery County Council.

A note from Adam Pagnucco.

Council Member Ervin is touching on a theme that was explored in the recent County Council District 4 special election. In the candidate debates in that short campaign, Nancy Navarro repeatedly mentioned the plight of the people "not in the room." In contrast, my blog-brother Kevin Gillogly offered this characterization of the election in a blog post comment: "That is this race in a nutshell: Growth and Land Use Policy. Everything else is smoke screen." The debate on growth policy, poverty, jobs and pay is heating up as this county teeters on the edge of a recession and Valerie Ervin is calling that question.

If another elected leader has a different view, we will carry it for our readers in the interest of encouraging open debate.

Council District 4 Special Election by the Numbers

Many political observers inside Montgomery County are discussing the meaning of Donald Praisner’s victory in the Council District 4 special election. Our contribution to that debate focuses on mathematics. From that perspective, Mr. Praisner won because of turnout and demographics.

In the district’s total polling place results, Mr. Praisner received 3,288 votes, 348 more than Nancy Navarro (2,940). Steve Kanstoroom finished third with 804 votes and Pat Ryan trailed with 402. Overall turnout was 11.2%. But real insight requires an educated read of the precinct counts.

Council District 4 has 45 precincts. Of that number, Mr. Praisner won 22, Navarro won 21, Praisner and Navarro tied in 1 and Steve Kanstoroom won 1. (We predicted Kanstoroom’s win in Precinct 13-11 a week ago. Keep reading this blog, people!)

The precincts won by Mr. Praisner reported a combined turnout of 12.9%. Navarro’s precincts reported a combined turnout of 9.1%. That difference of 3.8 points contributed to Mr. Praisner’s margin of 348 votes.

But there’s more. Mr. Praisner won all five precincts reporting the highest turnouts, including Precincts 13-54 and 13-69 in Leisure World. Of the eight precincts reporting the lowest turnouts, Navarro won seven and tied with Praisner in the eighth.

The two Leisure World precincts had combined turnout of 20.5%, 9.3 points ahead of the district total. They reported 476 votes for Mr. Praisner (47% of their total), 323 votes for Navarro (32%), 166 votes for Kanstoroom (16%) and 45 votes for Ryan (4%). Leisure World by itself gave Mr. Praisner 44% of his victory margin.

Turnout was correlated with demographics. District 4 has seven precincts in which the Hispanic population topped 20% in the 2000 Census. Navarro won all seven. These precincts cast 267 votes for Navarro (50% of their Democratic total) and 179 for Mr. Praisner (34%). However, their turnout was only 7.6% - a full 3.6 points below the district’s total turnout.

District 4 has eleven precincts in which the black population topped 30% in the 2000 Census. Navarro won seven of these and Mr. Praisner won four. These precincts cast 583 votes for Navarro (47% of their total) and 509 for Mr. Praisner (41%). Navarro’s victory here is notable since Mr. Praisner’s biggest endorsement came from County Executive Ike Leggett, Montgomery County’s most prominent African American resident. These precincts reported a turnout of 8.4% - 2.8 points below the district’s total turnout.

District 4 has fifteen precincts outside of Leisure World in which the white population was at least 60% in 2000. Mr. Praisner won eight of these, Navarro won six and they tied in one. These precincts cast 1,016 votes for Mr. Praisner (44% of their total) and 936 votes for Navarro (40%). Turnout was 10.9%, almost equal to the district’s total turnout (11.2%). In the end, these precincts plus Leisure World accounted for 233 votes of Mr. Praisner’s 348 vote lead, or two-thirds of his margin.

Mr. Praisner’s supporters are understandably pleased at his victory, but they have cause to worry about 2010. As Mr. Praisner has said many times, he will not be on the ballot again. His supporters and potential successors should consider the following relevant facts:

1. School board member Marilyn Praisner (in 1990) and American University professor Jamie Raskin (in 2006) both required year-long campaigns to knock off long-time incumbents. Nancy Navarro came close to defeating the 17-year-incumbent Praisner family in just six weeks. As someone who saw her operation up close, I was impressed by the discipline and tactical intelligence of her campaign. Now that Navarro has survived the fire of an occasionally acrimonious and difficult election, she should be an even more formidable candidate if she runs again.

2. Most voters knew who their candidate was when they arrived at the polls on Tuesday. This reduced the importance of MCEA’s Apple Ballot. This will not be the case in 2010.

3. District 4 is a majority non-white jurisdiction and is trending even further in that direction. Navarro’s strong performance in black and Latino precincts – even against the choice of a black County Executive – swims with the demographic tide of history. And if she chooses to run again in 2010, she will have much more time to get out the vote in those precincts.

Ironically, the best hope for Navarro’s opponents among non-white voters could be Pat Ryan. His work with Action in Montgomery has brought him into contact with many black, Latino and immigrant communities in the county. His hands-on advocacy for affordable housing is a good issue with these constituencies. But Ryan was discouraged from running by the establishment officials who backed Mr. Praisner. Starved for money and deprived of endorsements, Ryan garnered just 5% of the vote and finished last in 33 of the district’s 45 precincts. If Ryan or Steve Kanstoroom, who spent $24,000 of his own money only to draw 11% of the vote, is anointed to be Mr. Praisner’s successor, will either be able to overcome such a low finish?

Last Pre-Election County D4 Round-Up

By tomorrow night, this race will be over. Here’s the state of play one day out.

On press, coverage has picked up in the last week. The Post has written its last wrap-up article. Maryland Moment discusses a spat over an email sent by MCEA to its members. Dan Reed at Just Up the Pike has interviews up with almost every candidate. He will post an interview with Don Praisner tomorrow morning. Politicker Maryland has posted interviews with Praisner, Pat Ryan and Nancy Navarro’s campaign manager in the last few days.

On the ground, it appears that Navarro has sent out more literature than the other candidates combined. Some District 4 residents have reported receiving more than a half-dozen mailers from her over the last three weeks. Recently, Navarro lit has been showing up with “Endorsed by the Washington Post” stickers. The signs are more balanced among the Democrats; Praisner probably has a narrow lead with Navarro and Ryan close behind. Republican Mark Fennel may have more signs up than all the Democrats combined, with each accompanied by a “Robin Realty” sign. The three largest MoCo unions - MCEA, SEIU Local 500 and UFCW Local 1994 (MCGEO) - have several thousand members inside the district and are no doubt calling and emailing them on Navarro’s behalf. Don Praisner will be drawing on a list of everyone who has contributed to or supported Marilyn Praisner over the years and his campaign will be asking them to show up one last time for the family.

The great unknowable is who will arrive at the polls tomorrow. In the special election to fill the County Council District 5 seat in Prince George’s County, only 8% of the registered Democrats showed up. If turnout is less than that, Don Praisner will have the advantage. All sides concede that the Praisners have a devoted base inside the district who are sure to vote. But if turnout gets into the mid-teens, Navarro will close the gap.

So now the great call-out begins. Over the last several weeks, each of the candidates has been identifying their voters and earning their loyalties. Now they have to make sure that their people show up. That will determine the course of the election, the holder of the council seat and the political direction of Montgomery County for the next two years.

Washington Post Endorses Navarro

Will this make a difference in a tight, fiercely-contested race that will probably have low turnout? Read the language of the endorsement below.

A Critical Primary in a Changing County

Friday, April 11, 2008; Page A20

THE DEATH this winter of Marilyn J. Praisner, a wellspring of sound judgment, fiscal prudence and deep knowledge over her 17 years on the Montgomery County Council, left an enormous gap. It also left the council divided on critical questions involving the management and budget of a dynamic jurisdiction of almost a million people.

That sets the context for an unusually important and hard-fought Democratic primary on Tuesday to fill Mrs. Praisner's empty seat in District 4, an exceptionally diverse area that includes Aspen Hill, the Route 29 corridor from White Oak to Burtonsville and a grab bag of neighborhoods between Wheaton and Olney. Since the district's 200,000-odd constituents are overwhelmingly Democratic, the victor in that party's primary is almost assured of winning the general election May 13. We believe that the best candidate is Nancy Navarro.

Ms. Navarro, current president of the county's Board of Education, is the only public officeholder among the candidates in the primary. That alone doesn't make her the best choice, but it does inform an outlook that is moderate, sensible and sensitive to an array of competing constituencies. In a slow-growing county that has nonetheless been gripped by venomous battles over growth, she possesses a vision broad enough to understand that the challenges facing the county may not replicate the debates of the past.

The Post opposed Ms. Navarro when she ran for the school board in 2006, thinking her too enamored of confrontational politics. We were mistaken. On the board, where she has twice been elected president, she has played a constructive role in guiding one of the nation's largest and best school systems, impressing colleagues with the care of her preparation and her passion for excellence. On the council, she would face a steep learning curve to master county government issues. But she has already shown a capacity for detail-oriented leadership that would serve her well.

Four members of the current council, as well as County Executive Isiah Leggett, have endorsed one of Ms. Navarro's primary opponents, Don Praisner, widower of the late council member. Their choice partly reflects a concern that Ms. Navarro, who has received much of her financial backing in this race from organized labor, would be in the unions' pocket. It's a legitimate worry, particularly during the county's current budgetary squeeze, when public employees unions, among others, will have to bear some of the burden. Ms. Navarro makes no bones about her alliance with labor, but we hope she will be sufficiently independent-minded to see that annual pay increases of 8 percent are simply not sustainable in the current budgetary environment.

Kanstoroom Reports Finances to MPW

County Council District 4 Candidate Steve Kanstoroom is the only Democrat in the race for whom the State Board of Elections is not displaying a finance report. After I mentioned this fact to him last night, he explained that he sent in his report on time but the board was not returning his calls asking that it be posted. Kanstoroom promptly emailed me his finance report and the details will surely interest our readers.

As of 3/30/08, Kanstoroom’s campaign recorded $24,520 in total receipts. All but $520 are loans from Kanstoroom himself. The campaign spent $20,553.86, mostly on printing and campaign materials ($16,462.57). Its cash balance was $3,966.14.

While Kanstoroom’s ending balance was low, his receipts surpassed Don Praisner ($22,030) and Pat Ryan ($10,825) but fell short of Nancy Navarro ($34,446). His extensive loans and former ownership of an IT business suggest that Kanstoroom is the one candidate in the race who can self-finance his campaign. In the handful of days left, volunteers are more important than money, but cash can still buy robocalls and print ads.

I saw Kanstoroom and several other candidates at a late-night forum sponsored by the Northwood-Four Corners Civic Association, which represents the neighborhood just north of the hellacious University Boulevard-US 29 intersection. The forum followed another debate in Burtonsville that ran late, and the bleary-eyed candidates staggered into the North Four Corners Recreation Center after 9:30 PM. The neighborhood is locked in a bitter battle with the County Council and the Parks Department over a plan to construct a soccer field in their current tree-filled park. The park is THE ISSUE in this part of District 4, much like the Intersection of Death is the big issue in my area.

Precinct 13-11, which conforms to the neighborhood boundaries, had 2,668 registered Democrats in the last primary. It had the 7th-highest voter turnout rate in the 2008 Democratic primary and the 5th-highest voter turnout rate in the 2006 Democratic primary among County District 4’s 45 precincts. However, Kanstoroom and Nancy Navarro were the only Democrats to show up for the civic association’s forum. Kanstoroom, a legendary foe of Park and Planning, cleaned up with this group. But the absence of Praisner and Ryan was noticed.

Back in 2006, my civic association jam-packed an apocalyptic public meeting at Holy Cross Hospital covering various issues connected to the reviled Georgia Avenue-Forest Glen intersection. We recorded the attendance by politicians on our website. We never forgot which politicians came and which ones didn’t. I imagine that the residents of Northwood-Four Corners will react the same way.

One more quick tidbit. Don Praisner has begun reporting contributions received since his last campaign filing on his website. I don’t understand why the individual contributions are reported as ranges (for example, the County Executive gave him “$1,000+”). But this is still more information than his rivals are disclosing and he deserves credit for that.

Disclosure: I am the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. Our local affiliate, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, endorsed Nancy Navarro.

Navarro, Praisner Campaign Contributions Provide Ammo for Both Sides

Last Friday was the deadline for the final campaign finance reports before the County Council District 4 special election primary. Both the Navarro and Praisner camps will find them useful.

Nancy Navarro reported contributions from individuals of $12,196, the Hispanic Democratic club of $250 and Maryland PACs of $22,000 for total receipts of $34,446. Her campaign reported $28,380.81 on hand. Sixty-four percent of her contributions came from labor unions, including the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters ($6,000), the Montgomery County Career Fire Fighters ($6,000), UFCW Local 1994, also known as MCGEO or the government employees ($5,000), SEIU Maryland/DC State Council ($3,000), SEIU Local 500 ($1,000) and the Metropolitan Washington AFL-CIO ($1,000). The fact that Navarro received nearly two-thirds of her contributions from labor rebuts the allegation that she is “developer-controlled.”

However, one name on her individual contributor list truly stands out: Aris Mardirossian, who gave her the maximum contribution of $4,000. Mardirossian is the developer of Crown Farm in Gaithersburg. He is notorious for once suing Montgomery County Civic Federation President Wayne Goldstein when Goldstein wrote him a letter inquiring about tree removal on his property. The lawsuit, widely viewed as a frivolous slap suit in MoCo’s civic community, still causes many anti-growth activists to make the sign of the cross whenever Mardirossian’s name is uttered in their presence. Navarro’s campaign made a mistake by accepting this contribution. Her opponents are sure to jump all over it despite the fact that Mardirossian also once gave $3,000 to Marilyn Praisner.

Donald Praisner has also filed an interesting finance report. His campaign reported contributions from individuals of $16,280, Council Member Phil Andrews’ campaign account of $750, and a loan from Mr. Praisner himself of $5,000 for total receipts of $22,030. His campaign reported $17,551.67 on hand. Mr. Praisner’s biggest contributors are Council Member Marc Elrich’s chief of staff Dale Tibbitts ($2,000), County Executive spouse Catherine Leggett ($1,000), former Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg staffer Bobbie Walton ($1,000) and Nicholas Miller of Bethesda ($1,000). (Geez, Dale, how much is Marc paying you?) Tibbitts, Leggett, Walton, Andrews, County Executive spokesman Patrick Lacefield ($200) and former Marilyn Praisner staffers Claire Iseli ($150) and Sherry Kinikin ($100), along with Mr. Praisner, comprised a core group of contributors who together accounted for 46% of his campaign’s funding.

Mr. Praisner told the Gazette last week that Navarro was the only candidate taking money from developers. His supporters have lambasted Navarro on this blog for failing to abstain from development money despite Marilyn Praisner’s ready acceptance of it. But two of Mr. Praisner’s contributors are connected to the real estate industry.

Nicholas Miller of Bethesda, who gave $1,000 to Mr. Praisner on 3/26/08, is a telecommunications lawyer with Miller and Van Eaton PLLC. According to its website, the firm’s clients include the “Building Owners and Managers Association, International, the Institute of Real Estate Management, the International Council of Shopping Centers, the National Apartment Association, the National Multi-Housing Council, the National Realty Committee, and the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts.” Now this has nothing to do with development, right?

Gregory Eisenstadt of Brookeville gave $100 to Mr. Praisner on 3/24/08. Eisenstadt has been a steady supporter of Marilyn Praisner over the years, giving $314 to her campaigns between 2001 and 2005. Eisenstadt is the owner of Privacy World, a housing complex just north of the Glenmont Metro station due to be redeveloped by JBG Companies. The Privacy World redevelopment will be one of the bigger projects in District 4 if the County Council allows it to proceed. Eisenstadt’s relationship with the Praisners makes sense for him although his contribution runs afoul of Mr. Praisner’s pledge to avoid development money.

Let this be a lesson for all the aspiring politicians who read this blog: the worst thing about making a pledge is actually having to keep it!

Democrat Pat Ryan has raised a total of $10,825, of which $4,000 came from the Montgomery County Career Fire Fighters Association. (Yes, this is the same union that gave $6,000 to Navarro.) Ryan is his own biggest individual contributor and gave his campaign $2,000 in seed money on 3/10/08. Ryan had $9,632.52 on hand, slightly more than half Mr. Praisner’s total and over one-third of Navarro’s holdings. Republican Mark Fennel has raised $1,705 with all but $300 coming from the candidate. Republican Thomas Hardman gave himself $100, the sole contribution to his campaign. Financial reports for Democrat Steve Kanstoroom and Republican John McKinnis are not yet available.

Now that the finance reporting deadline has passed and the special primary is fast closing in, District 4 voters will be treated to their most intense week of politicking since Marilyn Praisner defeated Mike Gudis way back in 1990. Lock your doors and let the answering machine fend off those robocalls!

Disclosure: I am the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. Our local affiliate, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, endorsed Nancy Navarro.

County Council District 4 Round-Up

OK everybody, with less than two weeks to go, here’s the latest.

1. The Prince George’s County Council District 5 special election has MoCo campaign operatives’ tongues wagging. In that seven-candidate election, Theresa Dudley defeated Adam Ortiz by 171 votes at last count with a turnout of 8.2% of registered voters. If that turnout holds in MoCo District 4, roughly 8,400 voters will show up. So a competitive D4 candidate will have 3,000 votes and a sure winner will cross the 4,000 mark. These are small, small numbers folks, and anything could happen.

2. The Post and the Gazette have churned out quite a few articles in the last week. Among them are reports of County Council staffers getting cozy with Don Praisner’s campaign manager, a recounting of last Saturday’s candidate forum and a discussion of the challenges of time and name recognition. Additionally, this blog has made MCDCC Vice-Chairman Alan Banov a multi-media star as he has been interviewed by the Gazette about the illegal robo-calls first reported here. Hopefully Mr. Banov will remember who launched his ride to fame when one of us runs for a state legislative appointment!

But the biggest story of the week is the Gazette’s report on two meetings at the home of MoCo Superintendent of Schools Jerry Weast attended by education union leaders a month ago. The Gazette reports, “At the first meeting, Weast said that the unions should endorse Navarro for the County Council, according to a person who talked about what happened on the condition of not being identified.” The Gazette quoted Merle Cuttita, President of SEIU Local 500, as saying that the meeting was primarily about budget issues but she added, “He let us know that she would be a good candidate for county council ... that Nancy Navarro would be a good candidate for the council.” Nancy Navarro and County Council Member Valerie Ervin attended the second meeting, but Navarro denied that any endorsement was discussed there.

My father was a special education teacher, an assistant principal, a principal, an Assistant Superintendent of Schools and a school system controller in upstate New York. He never endorsed politicians or asked his unions to support any of them. He had a sound reason for that policy. In my rural county, voters directly approved school budgets. If my father had ever gotten too close to a politician, it would have made the local paper and his budget would have been killed. So he never, ever went there.

It is perfectly natural for the Superintendent to meet with the President of the Board of Education (Navarro), a County Council Member on the Education Committee (Ervin) and the leaders of the unions to discuss the schools budget. But Jerry Weast is playing with fire if he indeed asked the unions to support Navarro. First, he will run afoul of the County Executive, who is supporting Don Praisner. Second, Navarro’s opponents will be sure to remember Weast’s political apostasy if one of them wins. Third, he is giving Navarro’s rivals a good issue and Steve Kanstoroom raised it at Wednesday night’s debate. (And check out my blog-brother Kevin Gillogly's searing rant about this, which is forthcoming.) Mr. Weast, take it from the son of a career public school administrator: stay out of politics.

3. District 4 resident Dan Reed of Just Up the Pike is the best interviewer in MoCo blogdom. He has a talent for picking up on the little things that tell you a lot about a person. Check out Rockville mayoral candidate Drew Powell’s relentless hunt for a security guard, Steve Kanstoroom’s making change for a homeless guy and former County Council candidate Hans Riemer’s pho-drenched denunciations of limousine liberals. Dan has posted interviews with Navarro, Kanstoroom and Republicans Mark Fennel and Thomas Hardman with more on the way. Do yourself a favor and bookmark Just Up the Pike.

4. Nancy Navarro and Don Praisner are getting most of the attention but Steve Kanstoroom and Pat Ryan deserve mention. Both are strong and attractive candidates. Kanstoroom is crazy-earnest and combines green eye-shades with a warm heart. He is a beloved figure among the Sandy Spring activists he is helping. Would he really wring greater efficiencies from MoCo government as he claims? I don’t know, but speaking as a fellow dirt-digging researcher, it would be fun to watch him try.

As for Ryan, he may be the true heir to Marilyn Praisner from a policy perspective. I have seen him at two debates and he espouses the Praisner position package: fiscal restraint and caution on growth. After picking up the Gazette’s endorsement, Ryan glowed with confidence at Wednesday night’s debate. If you are a District 4 voter who agreed with Marilyn Praisner’s agenda and would like to see an advocate carry it out for the long run, you should seriously consider Pat Ryan.

5. Don Praisner did not show up at Wednesday night’s debate. County Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg told the audience that he was sick and had gone to the hospital. The Gazette is reporting that Mr. Praisner will not be attending tonight’s taped debate.

6. And if you guys really need more of this, here’s the schedule for the remaining debates:

FRI 4/4: 6:00 Montgomery Community Television/LWV Televised Forum @ MCT Studios, 7548 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855

SUN 4/6: 3:00 Sandy Spring Forum, Sherwood Elemenatary School, 1401 Olney-Sandy Spring Road (Rte 108), Sandy Spring, MD

TUE 4/8: 7:00 LWV Debate @ Sandy Spring Friends School 16923 Norwood Rd, Sandy Spring, MD 20860

WED 4/9: 7:00 Burtonsville Debate @ Paint Branch High School, 14121 Old Columbia Pike, Burtonsville, MD 20866

WED 4/9: 7:00 Northwood-Four Corners Forum @ North Four Corners Park Recreation Center, 211 Southwood Ave, Silver Spring, MD

THU 4/10: 2:00 Riderwood Debate @ Performance Hall of Lakeside Commons at Riderwood Village, 3150 Gracefield Rd, Silver Spring, MD

THU 4/10: 7:30 Leisureworld Debate @ Club House 1, 14901 Pennfield Circle, Silver Spring, MD

Disclosure: I am the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. Our local affiliate, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, endorsed Nancy Navarro.

The Politics of Paranoia

One charge made with increasing ferocity against County Council District 4 candidate Nancy Navarro is that she is allegedly a “tool of the developers.”

Stuart Rochester, a District 4 resident supporting Don Praisner, told the Gazette:

“I’m finding that although there is a good deal of respect for Navarro, there is a concern that she is identified, fairly or not, with the pro-business and pro-development forces in the county,” Rochester said. “For that reason she may not be relied on to carry on the positions that Marilyn had.”

Takoma Park activist Mike Tabor, who does not live in the district, wrote the following to the Gazette in endorsing Mr. Praisner:

The problem that many have with this election is the quiet support of the fast, uncontrolled growth activists for Navarro. She openly accepts contributions from developers, PACs, special interests and land use attorneys. She is not willing to place limits on those contributions.

My belief is that this could lead to a conflict of interest any elected politician making decisions regarding land use issues.

The fear of many of us is that if Navarro is elected, the faster, uncontrolled growth advocates will have a majority on the council once again. Furthermore, a Navarro victory might enable a more developer and business-friendly majority on the council to fill the two vacant positions on the Park and Planning Board.

The issue erupted at the People’s Community Baptist Church forum last weekend. The Gazette reports:

During the only negative exchange in the meeting, Praisner took issue with a Navarro comment in response to a moderator’s question about campaign financing and avoiding undue influence. Navarro had said she was financing her campaign as Marilyn Praisner had, with contributions from many sources, including business interests.

“I resent how you represent Marilyn Praisner and her influence,” Donald Praisner said. “In her last year, she was disappointed with you because you were not an independent voice.”

After the meeting, Navarro said she only meant to show she was financing her campaign in the same spirit as Marilyn Praisner had. “I’m not sure why he took my comment negatively,” she said. “I was only referring to public campaign information. If we’re going to talk about financing campaigns, this is what the record shows.”

On Monday, Donald Praisner said that only Navarro is taking money from developers and that Navarro may “undo some of the work my wife did,” referring to provisions supported by Marilyn Praisner and passed by the County Council designed to slow the pace of growth.

Neighborspac, a MoCo activist group that opposed overdevelopment, raised the issue of politicians and development contributions starting in the 2002 county races. Neighborspac began tabulating contributions from development-connected people or entities and reporting them as a percentage of the total receipts for each candidate. Neighborspac had a point: if a politician received an overwhelming percentage of his or her support from one industry, like real estate, voters had a right to know that. I certainly looked at Neighborspac’s data in 2006 before casting my votes.

But since then, the issue has mutated. Now the standard is not whether a politician accepts an overwhelming majority of his or her contributions from business, but whether a politician accepts any contributions from business at all. Because Navarro has refused to rule out any business contributions, she is accused of being controlled by them. This is a difficult test for any politician to pass, including a very prominent one who is relevant to this race: the late Marilyn J. Praisner.

According to state board of elections data, Mrs. Praisner raised a total $78,056 between 2001 and 2008. Of that total, $32,769 – a full 42% – came from businesses, business owners or corporate lawyers. See the graphic below for the specific contributions.


Among Mrs. Praisner’s contributors was Bryant Foulger, head of construction and real estate giant Foulger Pratt, who gave her $200. That firm is a partner in Downtown Silver Spring developer PFA, against whom a First Amendment demonstration was launched last summer. Companies and relatives of Aris Mardirossian contributed $3,000 to Mrs. Praisner. Mardirossian, developer of Crown Farm in Gaithersburg, is infamous in MoCo for suing civic grand-daddy Wayne Goldstein for the mere act of writing him a letter. Three Linowes and Blocher lawyers contributed a total of $975. And four limited liability companies from Colorado gave Mrs. Praisner a combined total of $2,000 in 2006.

Does any of the above make Marilyn Praisner a “tool of the developers?” Hell no. As I wrote in my tribute to her, “She was a woman of incredible intelligence, great fairness, and most of all, unquestioned honor. Nobody was smarter, tougher, harder-working or more honest.” Mrs. Praisner was a fearless crusader for her constituents and nobody was stupid enough to accuse her of being anything different. She could have taken a million dollars from Mardirossian and she would still have told him “NO.”

So what has Nancy Navarro done to justify treating her differently? Why is she the only candidate to be attacked by illegal, anonymous robo-calls? Why is she the only one accused of being controlled by “special interests?” Why are her critics making an issue of this before she has filed a single campaign finance report?

What we have here is the Politics of Paranoia. Taking a single dollar from a business buys off your integrity and makes you their slave. Or at least that’s what Navarro’s enemies would have you believe.

My advice is to vote the old-fashioned way. Grab the politicians by the lapels. Determine whether they agree with you on the majority of things that you care about, whether they are capable enough to deliver on those priorities and whether you think they are people of good values. If they pass those tests, vote for them. If they don’t, find someone else to vote for. No political jihads. No illegal robo-calls. Just you, your brain, your heart and your vote.

Disclosure: I am the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. Our local affiliate, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, endorsed Nancy Navarro.

Illegal Robocalls in Council District 4?

MCDCC Vice-Chairman Alan Banov reported receiving a negative robocall in connection with MoCo's County Council District 4 race. This is quite curious considering that he is a District 5 resident.

Mr. Banov left the following comment on one of our recent posts:

The other night I found a message on my voice mail from a robo-call to the effect that Nancy Navarro takes money from developers and if she does that, who would she listen to if she is elected. There was no "authorization" line on the message I heard, so I don't know if there was one in the beginning. Does anyone know who is sending out that message? I have no idea where Nancy Navarro is getting her money or whether the message is true or false, but I am concerned about an anonymous negative robo-call.

Disclaimer: I don't have a dog in this race (I don't live in District 4). If I did, I might or might not vote for Nancy Navarro. I haven't decided what I would do.

Mr. Banov then supplied the following partial transcription. He did not have the complete first sentence:

"… the upcoming County Council special election, please remember:

Nancy Navarro will take campaign moneys from developers. When you get her campaign mail and phone calls, ask yourself: If Nancy takes developer money, will she represent the people or just the developers?"

Maryland’s election law mandates authority lines for all campaign materials, which specifically include "oral commercial campaign advertisements." If these robocalls are going out without authority statements, they are illegal under state law.

This reminds me more than a bit of Al Wynn's robocalls. As I remember, they did not help him very much. But at least they were openly authorized and not anonymous.

More on County Council District 4

Here’s our latest roundup for D4 residents and MoCo political junkies. (Yes, we know that you junkies need help, but in the meantime, keep reading our blog!)

Dan Reed at Just Up the Pike has posted an interview with Nancy Navarro. Once again, Dan shows off his knack for picking out the most interesting, and even the most provocative, statements from his interviewees.

Progressive Neighbors has posted interviews with Nancy Navarro and Don Praisner. These interviews contain the most detailed positions on issues so far released by either candidate. They even address our beloved Carr bill! Progressive Neighbors did not endorse in the contest.

Navarro has wrapped up the vast majority of union endorsements in the county. The only union to have endorsed another candidate is the Montgomery County Federation of Teachers, an American Federation of Teachers local union, which is supporting Don Praisner. MCFT has no contracts with the county and should not be confused with the Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA), which represents county teachers and has endorsed Navarro.

Steve Kanstoroom and Pat Ryan have websites up. Don Praisner has completely redone his website and it is much improved.

The recent County Council committee changes hinge on who wins the District 4 race. If the winner disagrees with Council President Mike Knapp’s assignments, they could change next year.

Kevin Gillogly and I are working on a joint post about last week’s candidate forum. Hurry up, Kevin! We know you are still grumpy because of your decision not to run, but that is no excuse for not covering this race for our all-important readers. The Gazette’s coverage of the forum is here. They missed the central exchange in the debate over the relationship of the education budget and the county’s deficit, but we will cover that for our readers.

Nancy Navarro's Show of Force

One week after Don Praisner announced his candidacy for the District 4 County Council seat backed by the County Executive and four council members, Nancy Navarro responded with an announcement of her own.

Navarro’s campaign kicked off at the Good Hope Community Center at 11 this morning. Supporters in attendance included Council Member Valerie Ervin, Casa de Maryland leader Gustavo Torres, District 20 Delegate Tom Hucker, several members of the school board, representatives from MCEA and SEIU Local 500 and scores of district residents. Navarro read this statement:

My name is Nancy Navarro. I am the President of the Montgomery County Board of Education, a wife and a parent of two amazing daughters who could not be with us because they are in school. Earlier today, I filed as a candidate for the District 4 Council seat.

This candidacy was not in my plans. It came about after a sad and unexpected death of a woman who dedicated her life to service. I have learned that many honorable endeavors usually are not planned and that is why it is so important to be ready. And I can say with absolute resolve that I am ready for this seat and I am willing to represent all the residents of District 4 and this County.

Yesterday, I visited with over 100 residents of this neighborhood at the Good Hope United Methodist Church. They came together to demand a renovation of this center and other centers located in mostly low-income communities of color. This community came out to be heard, to be supported and to indicate their presence in this District.

In the last three weeks, I have heard that the only issues that people in this District care about are land use, the ICC, traffic and the environment. Indeed these are very important issues to all of us, but let’s not forget all the other issues that we all face everyday: the need for quality education, jobs, affordable housing, access to affordable child care, access to affordable health care, business development, enhanced transportation services and many more.

These are the issues that we must grapple with as a District and as a County. In these difficult economic times, we will not be able to solve everything. But it sure helps to have someone who has been in elected office, who has presided over an elected body and who is not afraid to exercise her independence while making very difficult decisions. I do believe in the politics of possibilities. I do believe that Montgomery County with its ever-changing face can and will continue to preserve its quality of life.

I pledge to seek consensus whenever possible, to promote civil discourse and to always make decisions based on what is in the best interest of District 4 and the County. Please come out to vote on April 15. District 4 deserves a leader that is here for the long haul, one that has been tried and tested, one that reflects the hopes and dreams of all its residents.

Three things stood out about this announcement to your blogger:

1. The campaign showed off an extremely diverse group of supporters for the event. Just look at the picture below:


Blacks, whites, Latinos, Asians, seniors, kids, union people, community activists and many others were present in abundance. As Council Member Valerie Ervin said, “When we talk about the new Montgomery County, this is what it looks like.” More importantly, the gathering resembled a district in which no one demographic group commands a majority.

2. Special elections depend on turnout and this one will be no exception. The fact that MCEA, SEIU and Casa de Maryland activists have all pledged to support Navarro gives her a ground game that her opponents must match. They should all beware of the fist-pumping declaration delivered by Gustavo Torres: “We are going to fight to make sure immigrants vote in this election!”

3. Mr. Praisner is effectively the incumbent in the race. Nevertheless, there was immense confidence among Navarro’s supporters. (Perhaps the Good Hope Community Center was aptly named for today’s event.) They truly believe that they will outwork the Praisner campaign and bring change to the district.

This race is compelling because District 4 has not seen a truly competitive contest since it was created in 1990. That year Marilyn Praisner, coming off service on the school board, ran as the candidate of change and defeated three-term council incumbent Mike Gudis. Is Nancy Navarro the 2008 model of Mrs. Praisner? We’ll find out in less than five weeks.

Disclosure: The author is the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. The union’s Mid-Atlantic Regional Council has endorsed Navarro.

Navarro Announces Kickoff

The Navarro campaign sent out the following announcement.

You Are Invited:
Nancy Navarro Campaign Kickoff

Where: Good Hope Community Center at 14715 Good Hope Rd, Silver Spring, MD
When: Monday, March 10th @ 11:00 AM
RSVP or to Volunteer: Mike Hamby jmhx9c@gmail.com

Please join Nancy Navarro and her supporters for a County Council campaign kickoff rally. Nancy's belief in the politics of possibilities and her inclusive vision of governance will be reflected by the diverse lineup of speakers who will announce their support for her candidacy:

Congresswoman-elect Donna Edwards
State Senator Jamie Raskin
State Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez
County Councilmember Valerie Ervin
and more!

We hope you can make it! In the meantime, please visit NancyNavarro.org for campaign updates and to donate.

By authority: Friends of Nancy Navarro, Laura Barnitz, Treasurer.

Teachers Endorse Navarro

Maryland Moment has the story here.

Additionally, Navarro's website now lists her supporters as including MCEA, the Service Employees, the Carpenters, Congressional candidate Donna Edwards, Senators Jamie Raskin and Rich Madaleno, Delegates Ana Sol Gutierrez and Tom Hucker, Council Member Valerie Ervin, Casa de Maryland leader Gustavo Torres and a majority of the school board.

Disclosure: the author is employed as Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters.

Praisner vs. Navarro: It's On

The campaigns of both Donald Praisner and Nancy Navarro made major announcements this week in the race for the District 4 County Council seat.

Donald Praisner, 76, kicked off his campaign at the County Council building on Monday. Backed by County Executive Ike Leggett and several council members, Mr. Praisner plans to hold the seat only for the remainder of his wife's term.

Navarro's campaign responded with this press release:

##FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE##
March 4, 2008
Nancy Navarro Recruits Top Staff for
Montgomery County Council Campaign
Navarro Promises to Bring Vigorous Volunteer-Energy and Fundraising to Big-Tent Campaign

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact: Nancy Navarro
Phone: 301-628-7705
Email: nancy@nancynavarro.org

SILVER SPRING, MD - Montgomery County Board of Education President, Nancy Navarro, today announced the hiring of top staff in her campaign for the vacant District 4 County Council seat.

Having retained Congresswoman-elect Donna Edwards' field director and Sen. Jamie Raskin's campaign manager, Navarro promises to run a first-rate campaign and to raise the resources necessary for victory on April 15th.

Navarro has already recruited dozens of volunteers and a high-profile list of endorsers to be announced in the coming weeks.

The campaign plans an official kickoff event on Monday, March 10th. Details to follow.

The Gazette article also reports that District 19 Delegate Ben Kramer is still considering entering the race. And the Post has more on the continuing dispute between Steve Kanstoroom and the Planning Board.

Next up is MCEA's endorsement, which could come this week. The union could endorse a candidate or sit out the race entirely.

Update: The Post's coverage is here.

Donna Edwards Statement for Navarro

This is one of the three endorsements that every candidate running in County Council District 4 would like to have. The others, of course, would come from County Executive Ike Leggett and MCEA, neither of whom has announced their support. Edwards' statement follows:

Over the years, I have been fortunate to meet many smart, talented, and visionary leaders from all across our district. One such individual is Nancy Navarro. Her experience on the Montgomery County Board of Education and years of service in numerous volunteer roles throughout the County make Nancy an extremely well qualified candidate to become the next member of the Montgomery County Council. She embodies the critical qualities of proven leadership, understanding of the issues, integrity and progressive ideals that we need in our elected officials. I am proud to offer Nancy Navarro my endorsement in her bid to join the Montgomery County Council succeeding Marilyn Praisner in her tremendous commitment to public
service. Donna Edwards

How long before Council D4 residents see a mailout with Edwards and Navarro in the same photo?

County Council District 4 Special Election Preview, Part Two

As noted in Part One, Mrs. Praisner’s premature departure has left a large vacuum in Council District 4’s political world. But there are potential aspirants for her seat. The actual and possible candidates in the all-important Democratic primary include:

Board of Education President Nancy Navarro

Navarro, a co-founder of immigrant services non-profit Centro Familia, was originally appointed to the school board in 2004. She quickly formed an alliance with fellow board member (and future County Council Member) Valerie Ervin. When Navarro ran for election in 2006, she appeared on the Apple Ballot and leapfrogged Sharon Cox to become President shortly afterwards. Navarro declared for office on Tuesday and was promptly endorsed by progressive hero Donna Edwards.

Navarro is the early favorite for three reasons. First, her position on the school board gives her substantial district-wide name recognition. Second, she would be a logical choice to once again appear on the Apple Ballot. (Note: MCEA has not disclosed its plans.) Third, there is growing concern among politically-active MoCo women about a recent trend of filling vacancies formerly held by women with men. (The state legislative appointments in Districts 16, 18 and 47 come to mind.) If Navarro is the only female candidate in the field, she will benefit.

Current State Legislators

Of the eight current state legislators in Districts 14 and 19, all but one (District 14 Delegate Karen Montgomery) live in Council District 4. Two of them have run unsuccessfully for County Council before. District 19 Delegate Ben Kramer was the Democratic nominee in District 2 in 1994 and ran at-large in 1998. District 14 Delegate Herman Taylor was the Democratic nominee in District 2 in 1998. (Ironically, both Taylor and Kramer were defeated by Republican Nancy Dacek.) Any of the current state legislators would be plausible contenders for Mrs. Praisner’s seat.

However, not many of them will actually run. First, three of them (District 14 Senator Rona Kramer and Delegates Herman Taylor and Anne Kaiser) are in their second term and District 19 Delegate Henry Heller is in his sixth term. These legislators have or are gaining seniority in the General Assembly, probably making it less tempting to leave. Second, because their state legislative incomes ($43,000 and up) supplement their salaries from regular employment, they would have to make significant financial sacrifices to accept a sole County Council member salary of $89,721. Third, each of them would have to work hard to raise money quickly and make contacts in the portion of Council District 4 that they do not currently represent.

The most likely exception to the above rules is Ben Kramer. Kramer, the son of former County Executive Sidney Kramer and brother of current District 14 Senator Rona Kramer, is a self-employed businessmen who has loaned his delegate campaign $124,450. If he is still interested in following his father into County government, he is more than capable of waging a well-financed campaign aided by name recognition.

Former State Legislators

Former District 19 Delegates Adrienne Mandel and Carol Petzold unsuccessfully ran for Senate in 2006 against Mike Lenett. Either of them may be interested in a council run. But they would face the same problems the current state legislators have: the need to raise money quickly and campaign in the parts of Council District 4 that they did not represent in the statehouse.

Civic Activists

MoCo has hundreds of civic activists who volunteer substantial amounts of time on various causes. When many of these activists broaden their agendas beyond their neighborhood-specific issues, they often focus on limiting development, pursuing accountability in government and restraining government taxes and spending. These sorts of issues interest participants in organizations like the Montgomery County Civic Federation, the Montgomery County Taxpayers League and Neighborspac.

Two District 4 activists have already declared their candidacy.

Steve Kanstoroom, an activist from Ashton, looks a bit like an older Dirk Benedict without the cigar. Among the issues he has worked on in recent years are illegal deforestation, abuses in FEMA’s flood insurance program and the Planning Department’s denial of street addresses to some residents of Sandy Spring. Kanstoroom even exposed an individual who had appeared as an expert witness at Board of Appeals hearings as never having possessed a professional engineer license. The Montgomery County Civic Federation gave him its “Community Hero” award in 2006. But not everyone is a fan of Kanstoroom’s. Council Member George Leventhal was incensed after Kanstoroom picketed his house over the Sandy Spring issue.

Patrick E. Ryan is a management consultant with the Washington Federal Practice of PriceWaterhouseCoopers. He is a co-chair of Action in Montgomery, a multi-purpose activist group affiliated with the Saul Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation. He is also active in the Church of Resurrection Catholic Parish, the National Coalition of Homeless Veterans and the Fairland Master Plan Civic Advisory Committee. Ryan lives in northeastern Silver Spring near Burtonsville.

Civic activists were a natural part of Mrs. Praisner’s base. But a pure civic candidate faces problems of name recognition, raising money and securing endorsements – all of which are exacerbated in a short campaign. The 2006 race in Council District 2 provides an example. Longtime activist and Neighborspac endorsee Sharon Dooley ran against well-funded, endorsement-rich, MCEA-backed incumbent Mike Knapp. Dooley lost the race by 64-36%.

Perhaps the biggest problem Kanstoroom and Ryan have is each other. In a one-seat race, they threaten to split much of Mrs. Praisner’s coalition, thereby allowing another candidate to win. And there may yet be other civic candidates.

Finally, Free State Politics blogger Eric Luedtke lives in Council District 4. Luedtke is an MCEA member and is one of the most-learned, best-researched bloggers in the state. Are we going to see any announcements on FSP, Eric?

Our readers should watch three things going forward. First, who is getting endorsements from organizations with money (like the Chamber of Commerce) and ground operations (like MCEA)? Second, who is raising money? Campaign finance reports are due to the State Board of Elections on March 18, April 4, May 2 and June 3. Third, who is the County Executive, a Burtsonsville resident, going to support? A literature mailout with the Executive’s picture on it will be valuable in a short campaign with low turnout.

Stay tuned for more on this race.

Update: You can read the Post's coverage here. The Post floats one additional name: Cary Lamari, former president of the Montgomery County Civic Federation. Lamari finished 11th out of 13 candidates in the 2006 council at-large race.

Update 2: The Gazette's coverage is here and here.

County Council District 4 Special Election Preview, Part One

The upcoming special election for MoCo’s District 4 County Council seat is important for two reasons. First, it is the first time a council member other than Marilyn Praisner will represent the district. Second, it will decide the close balance of power on the council, especially on issues related to growth. And so we offer special coverage of this race here at Maryland Politics Watch.

Montgomery County Council District 4 was created in 1990, along with the four other council districts. Prior to that time, the council had seven members, all of whom were elected at-large. In 1990, the present system was set up assigning one council member to each of five districts, with four others running at-large. The districts roughly mirror the county’s population distribution with Council District 4 covering East County.

Geography

District 4’s boundaries are (roughly) the county line on the northeast and east, the outskirts of Olney and Brookeville on the north, Rock Creek and Veirs Mill Road on the west and Randolph Road, Four Corners and US-29 on the south. You can view the official district map here.

The district contains two distinct sub-sectors. The western sector includes the neighborhoods between the northern reaches of Wheaton and the southern outskirts of Olney. Much of this sector is accounted for by Aspen Hill. The eastern sector includes the US-29 corridor from White Oak to Burtonsville as well as the areas near the Howard County border. The dividing line between the sectors is New Hampshire Avenue. We make this distinction because these two sectors have very different demographics, as we shall see below.

There are no urbanized downtowns in District 4. The vast majority of the district is covered by single-family neighborhoods with only one Metro station (Glenmont) that is very close to the District 5 border. There are a few commercial strips along Georgia Avenue and Layhill Road in the west, US-29 and Cherry Hill Road in the east, and New Hampshire Avenue. But the lack of density robs the district of any centrally-recognized locations of social, political or civic activity.

Demographics

District 4 conforms fairly closely to the Census Bureau’s Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs) 01005 and 01006. (Those areas, however, include part of Kensington and exclude part of the area along the Howard County border, so they are not a perfect fit.) According to Census, the two PUMAs had a population of 236,844 in 2006. The population was 44% white non-Hispanic, 26% black non-Hispanic, 17% Hispanic and 11% Asian non-Hispanic. Two-thirds of the population is native-born while one-third is foreign-born. Of the 33% foreign-born, almost two-thirds (19%) are non-citizens. Forty percent of the district’s population speaks a language other than English at home. Median household income is $74,656, lower than the county’s average ($87,624). Forty-one percent of MoCo’s black population lives in this district.

There are significant demographic differences between the two sub-sectors. On the western side, which includes Georgia Avenue, Aspen Hill and most of Layhill Road, the population was 51% white non-Hispanic, 17% black non-Hispanic, 21% Hispanic and 8% Asian non-Hispanic. The median household income was $70,170. On the eastern side, which includes the US-29 corridor along with Colesville, the population was 37% white non-Hispanic, 35% black non-Hispanic, 11% Hispanic and 14% Asian non-Hispanic. The median household income was $80,043. So the western part of the district is whiter, more Latino, and relatively poorer than the eastern side. On the eastern side, the black population almost equals the white population, Latinos are not as numerous and the residents are nearly as wealthy as the county average.

Politics

The natural breeding grounds of politicians are municipalities and civic associations. District 4 does not have any municipalities and its civic associations are generally not as well-organized as those closer to Downtown Silver Spring and the I-270 corridor though there are a few exceptions). Those factors combined with the lack of urban density and the long dominance by Mrs. Praisner have created something of a political vacuum in the district. Mrs. Praisner had no real rivals and no designated successors.

The population’s racial diversity is not well reflected by its politicians. State Legislative District 14, which accounts for much of the eastern side of the district, is represented by three white women and one black man. State Legislative District 19, which accounts for much of the western side, is represented by four white men. Mrs. Praisner was the only County Council Member who lived in County District 4. However, there is one important exception to the above rule: County Executive Ike Leggett, who served four terms as an at-large member of the council, is a Burtonsville resident.

Dan Reed’s outstanding East County blog Just Up the Pike provides a good feel for East County. Dan paints a picture of a community handicapped by lack of transit, car-oriented neighborhood design and a general lack of commercial amenities. His series on the Briggs Chaney area provides one example. Dan’s interview with Mrs. Praisner also touches on these issues.

But East County’s large and diverse population and its links to both Wheaton and Silver Spring tie it firmly into the rest of the county. Mrs. Praisner, an unusual thinker who could handle both big-picture concepts and excruciatingly minute details, understood this very well. She was a capable defender of the area’s priorities but also a serious player on countywide issues. Whoever follows her will require quite some time to match her stature.

In Part Two, we’ll look more closely at the district’s political playing field.

More on Special Election Dates in MoCo Council D4

Here's a tidbit sure to interest all of you MoCo political junkies.

The County Council staff memo written by Senior Legislative Attorney Mike Faden confirms the dates reported by Kevin (4/15 for the primary, 5/13 for the general). But it then says the following:

Although neither date falls during a school break, Council President Knapp confirmed with Superintendent Weast that the school system could handle continuing to use schools as polling places on these dates. Of the 46 polling places used this year in District 4, 43 are public schools. County Elections staff indicated that they expect to consolidate some polling places for this special election. In any case, voters in District 4 will be officially notified at least twice of the election dates and their polling place.

Two questions:

1. What will this "consolidation" of polling places do to turnout?

2. If the teachers are working, who is going to distribute the Apple Ballots?