Frederick County Needs A New Form of Government

A great deal has been written about the proposed charter for Frederick County.  I’ve read most of it from the daily and weekly papers.  Jan Gardner observed, “I think it's always better when government is closest to the people,".  As an active Green Party member, I agree.   I’m committed to grassroots democracy and working for decision making to be as close to the people as possible. 

But this charter doesn’t do that.  Government under charter is just another version of the same top-down, control by an “elected” elite system that we already have.  Charter does nothing to bring decision making closer to the people. 

Take a look at the people and organizations supporting the move to charter government and you’ll see where the benefits lie.  Establishment career politicians, both Democratic and Republican support it.  The Chamber of Commerce, developers and their cronies support it.  Why is a land and commercial real estate salesman, Rocky Mackintosh on the charter writing board?  What special expertise has he in governmental affairs?  One just has to go back to his real estate newsletter and to The Tentacle articles of his of 2 years ago.  There he tells us that Frederick is living in the “horse and buggy era” and should be in the “BMW 5 Series” world of the modern America. 

So, even then, charter was seen as a way to give more authority and power to the “Beemer” set as opposed to those ancient “horse and buggy” types (perhaps referring to the life-long residents of this county, traditionally farmers).  As Rocky and his friends worked diligently to transform the county from its rural roots into the faceless and soulless gentrified suburban wasteland it has become, he worked as well to ensure government continued to evolve in a way to protect and support that transformation.

The calls for a “more streamlined and effective” county government are widespread and seemingly popular.  Under charter, we’re told, county legislators will be able to “move quickly” to enact laws and have “broad power” and authority.  Are those truly good things in what is supposed to be a democracy?

Look at what Ken Coffey and Robert Kresslein, both members of the charter writing board and supporters of the move to charter government had to say.  They observe that the current commissioner form of government is what they refer to as “collective leadership”.  Although they acknowledge that this form of governance has some merit, as in the fact that it honors “our commitment to democratic process”, apparently that’s not important enough to preserve.  That commitment lets us down, they conclude, in making government less efficient and effective.  I have a very different view of our commitment to “democratic process”.  That commitment must outweigh all other considerations, especially ones as insignificant and dangerous as “efficiency”, “streamlined government”, and the like.  There is an apparent fixation on the part of charter supporters on idea that our current process is too slow, too cumbersome, too much in danger of not allowing “quick” decisions.  Obviously, if you’re a developer or big businessman, or other one-percenter, having local government move quickly to approve your development, or other big business venture is quite important. For me, not so much; I’m quite content to take part in a democratic process, even if it is time consuming that includes all voices, considers all concerns, and comes to a decision that addresses all needs.  And yes, such a process exists within a democratic framework.  It’s called consensus.

Critics of charter claim government will cost more, that it will make the cost of running a campaign for office much more expensive and that will invite outside, big money to influence campaigns.  As one critic pointed out, it’s cheaper to bride one official (the county executive, for example) than to have to influence 3 of the current 5 county commissioners.  All this is no doubt true.  Commissioner David Grey observed that the low salary for councilmen ($22,500), and the part-time nature of their service would skew the balance of power, giving too much of it to the county executive.  But I would agree with charter supporters that there is nothing inherent in charter government that makes it any more corruptible or less democratic than the commissioner form.  It is not as Blaine Young suggested that it “strictly depends on who you elect”.  On the contrary, it becomes a question of who runs for the various offices and who controls the election process. 

Dividing the county into “districts” does not increase citizen participation and will not give all geographic areas of the county equal representation.  All we need to do to see that is to look at the state of Maryland, divided into counties and election districts.  A common complaint from Frederick County legislators is that the bigger, wealthier counties get a better hearing in Annapolis and more state funding.  The same will be true here in Frederick County with charter government.  Will residents of Rocky Ridge have the same clout in Winchester Hall as Urbana?  Will more funding go to roads where development is planned than to needy schools in the more rural parts of the county?  I know where I’d place my bet.  Currently a community has 5 representatives they can contact for support and help; under charter, they’ll have one. 

This in no way brings government closer to the people.

But local and county government certainly does need to be changed; not reformed or “updated”, but completely revised.

The charter needs to start at the closest point to the people; your neighborhood, the street on which you live.  Communities working together to bring about the changes they see as important to them are where democracy begins and ends. 

A good charter needs to specify how elections are conducted: publicly financed campaigns; all state-recognized political parties included; a voting system that gives equal access to all candidates.  Ideally, our political system should be some form of Proportional Representation.  In the interim, a system of Ranked Choice (also called IRV, Instant Runoff Voting), must at a minimum, be implemented. 

I understand that conservatives in this county and around the country do not believe we live in a democracy and strongly resist any move to bring us closer to one.  But these 3 simple changes: public financing of campaigns, inclusion of all political parties, and IRV will go a long way to bringing the county closer to a democratic process. 

I will be voting NO on the charter question this coming Tuesday. 

Decision making (that is, government) must be at the individual and local level, not embodied in one person, elected, appointed, or anointed. 

People have a voice in decision making when they are not only included in the discussion, but initiate and lead the discussion.  Dividing the county into voting districts will not increase citizen input nor amplify communities’ voices.

Community is the center of all economic and political power and social justice.  This charter widens the gulf between the people and the economic and political decisions made.  The county executive alone will interact with the “leaders” of Frederick County and the “leaders” in Annapolis.  This is not democracy.

Civilized society can only exist when rights, opportunity, and resources are equally shared by all.  This charter will serve only to further entrench the grotesque inequality that enslaves us.

I will vote NO to this and any charter written by the privileged few for their own benefit and the benefit of Establishment supporters.

It’s time for the people to write our own charter,